Message-ID: <14ea4cc9-da72-4e11-bbf2-48478b27b2bd@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 May 2026 13:46:48 -0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: postgres_fdw: use_scram_passthrough on user mapping is ignored
 when also set on server
To: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
References: 
 <CAHGQGwEJ8rZjmbOvCicyr4vbuLio082bNTde0WNoSWaWr9wVcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <DIIOEOI2RTVC.1J8PO0GO2VZIG@gmail.com>
 <CAHGQGwGXpYs+Hw+xqLacVtgS_ztwQ2hm1LeK8q=cMvGLYzB0HA@mail.gmail.com>
 <DIJD8SBZQK54.1L75HI5SLG2LT@gmail.com>
 <CAHGQGwEvZHhHWFp-9ikciyrKmsX7n-qvOixruMbP9pFH2VMnHQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <DILVRJ0YYTRC.1NDGAS1S7B456@gmail.com>
 <CAHGQGwFqBFkPzxfBad-1YzRPbapCq9TdXQC7zmSeqNisXyq6Gw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Matheus Alcantara <matheusssilv97@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAHGQGwFqBFkPzxfBad-1YzRPbapCq9TdXQC7zmSeqNisXyq6Gw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/14ea4cc9-da72-4e11-bbf2-48478b27b2bd%40gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 22/05/26 22:58, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 11:42 PM Matheus Alcantara
> <matheusssilv97@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think that the test is worth to have to avoid such issues in the
>> future again, but I agree that adding as a TAP test is overkill. I've
>> moved to sql/dblink.sql on the new attached version.
>>
>> Do you think that we need to add such test for postgres_fdw too?
> 
> No, I don't think so.
> 
> In dblink, use_scram_passthrough is handled by a dblink-specific validation
> path, and patch 0003 fixes that specific code path. So it might be worth
> adding such test for dblink.
> 
> In postgres_fdw, however, this option is handled by the generic option/context
> validation machinery, not by any special-case code. We already have tests for
> context-sensitive option validation there. So adding such test for postgres_fdw
> would be mostly redundant, I think. Thought?
> 

Agree, it make sense.

>> Yeah, we don't have any documentation about this on 18, but we do have
>> for sslkey and sslcert where in postgres-fdw.sgml we have the following:
>>      sslkey and sslcert - these may appear in either or both a connection
>>      and a user mapping. If both are present, the user mapping setting
>>      overrides the connection setting.
>>
>> So I think that is desirable to have the same behavior for
>> use_scram_passthrough.
> 
> Agreed. I'm therefore thinking of backpatching patches 0001 and 0002 to v18.
> 
> Even in v18, this change is very narrow. It only affects cases where
> use_scram_passthrough is specified at both the server and user-mapping levels
> with conflicting values. In such cases, the natural interpretation is that
> the user-mapping setting is intended to override the server-level setting;
> otherwise, there would be little reason to specify conflicting values.
> 
> Given the limited impact, leaving v18 as the only branch with different
> semantics for a feature introduced in v18 seems more undesirable and
> potentially confusing. So I think backpatching to v18 makes sense.
> 
+1

Thank you for finding the issue and reviewing the patch.

--
Matheus Alcantara
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com