Re: Custom oauth validator options
Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>
From: Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>
To: Zsolt Parragi <zsolt.parragi@percona.com>
Cc: VASUKI M <vasukianand0119@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
david.g.johnston@gmail.com, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, myon@debian.org
Date: 2026-01-16T17:52:11Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 9:14 AM Zsolt Parragi <zsolt.parragi@percona.com> wrote: > * A hba line can be completely generic, which should be above DATABASE > (ALTER DATABASE setting should override HBA setting, as it is more > specific) I think settings in the database should override the ones from the HBA, yes. So that would put PGC_S_HBA right between, what, _ARGV and _GLOBAL? > The first choice seems more logical to me, as that's how pg_hba is > usually used, but I thought this could still be confusing. I agree it could be, but is it any more confusing than if you were to set work_mem in postgresql.conf today, and then `ALTER ROLE ALL SET work_mem` to something completely different? Usability improvements for that should be made GUC-wide, I think, and not influence the chosen order of operations for this feature (as long as there are no new security concerns). I don't want any project veterans, whether DBAs or maintainers, to be surprised by how a new GUC context behaves. --Jacob
Commits
-
oauth: Allow validators to register custom HBA options
- b977bd308a09 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Make LOAD of an already-loaded library into a no-op, instead of attempting
- 602a9ef5a7c6 9.0.0 cited