Message-ID: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc-3895-rc2624491322@github.com>
From: "sehrope (@sehrope)" <noreply+sehrope@github.com>
To: "pgjdbc/pgjdbc" <noreply+pgjdbc-pgjdbc@github.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2025 19:32:18 +0000
Subject: Re: [pgjdbc/pgjdbc] PR #3895: implement require_auth, this is pretty much how libpq does this. 
In-Reply-To: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc-3895@github.com>
References: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc-3895@github.com>
List-Id: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc.github.com>
X-GitHub-Author-Login: sehrope
X-GitHub-Comment-Id: 2624491322
X-GitHub-Comment-Type: review_comment
X-GitHub-Commit: eebd8ea0fe770d05f2ad983798e10f41898f34a3
X-GitHub-Issue: 3895
X-GitHub-Path: pgjdbc/src/main/java/org/postgresql/core/v3/ConnectionFactoryImpl.java
X-GitHub-Repo: pgjdbc/pgjdbc
X-GitHub-Type: review_comment
X-GitHub-Url: https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/pull/3895#discussion_r2624491322
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

(on pgjdbc/src/main/java/org/postgresql/core/v3/ConnectionFactoryImpl.java)

Why are we doing it with bit masks rather than throwing the allowed / disallowed in a `Set<string>(...)` and calling `.has(...)`?

We have to do the mapping from the FEBE code to a name once and then can use that for the check. It's not like this happening in some tight loop. It'd be a single check for the whole connection handshake right?