Horton

Re: [PATCH] Expose port->authn_id to extensions and triggers

Drouvot, Bertrand <bdrouvot@amazon.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bdrouvot@amazon.com>
To: Jacob Champion <jchampion@timescale.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, "sfrost@snowman.net" <sfrost@snowman.net>, "rjuju123@gmail.com" <rjuju123@gmail.com>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, "andres@anarazel.de" <andres@anarazel.de>
Date: 2022-08-05T10:48:33Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Hi,

On 8/2/22 11:57 PM, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On 6/22/22 06:31, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
>> FWIW, I just created a new thread to expose the port->authn_id through
>> the SYSTEM_USER sql reserved word.
> Review for both seems to have dried up a bit. I'm not particularly
> invested in my code, but I do want to see *a* solution go in. So if it
> helps the review momentum for me to withdraw this patch and put my
> effort into SYSTEM_USER, I can do that no problem.
>
> Thoughts from prior reviewers? Is SYSTEM_USER the way to go?

I did not look in detail to this thread, but if the goal is "only" to 
expose authn_id (as the subject describes) then it seems to me that 
SYSTEM_USER [1] is the way to go.

[1]: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/39/3703/

-- 
Bertrand Drouvot
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Commits

  1. Remove initialization of MyClientConnectionInfo at backend startup

  2. Allow parallel workers to retrieve some data from Port