Feedback-ID: ie0a040ee:Fastmail
Message-ID: <67b7e52e-0d6e-4eb5-9318-fdcfa4e7ea51@eisentraut.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 09:37:34 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PoC] Federated Authn/z with OAUTHBEARER
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
To: Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
 Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
References: <d1b467a78e0e36ed85a09adf979d04cf124a9d4b.camel@vmware.com>
 <e44faf68-6538-41b9-84d2-b259294e5c28@eisentraut.org>
 <CAOYmi+myshCL_yaWQiu54Kj5in93D5nPyw7yXj2jZnDKi73SHQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <f9e49a45-ed19-412f-8bd4-f956e7a35e66@eisentraut.org>
 <CAOYmi+nHJgPAYHRUhvh=9rfqnkphRHObKjbpjYyZWi9jkNic3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <fa1c769b-42aa-46c2-ba0c-aa21f3eeb0a1@eisentraut.org>
 <CAOYmi+=pg=W5L1h=3MEP_EB24jaBu2FyATrLXqQHGe7cpuvwyg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3603e9bb-9a69-4761-869b-f5b1f204b840@eisentraut.org>
 <e4b1456c-318d-472c-8713-dcfac1ad6a29@eisentraut.org>
 <CAOYmi+n_Pu5X=zC-MhAmW_zV=rXH8Zzz1gXHdjbLf7YeGNDWBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <c7046d57-978d-4ad8-b130-070f38909ea1@eisentraut.org>
 <CAOYmi+n9qa3+fM0u5+=9vvr+TirM54Y8NMDUpPBn-8xLGHcFgw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOYmi+nwexxyLWxFFV1_owEY4DOOQL2dM31L98pNvg_8M7zAig@mail.gmail.com>
 <a12b74b7-9ef9-4720-8f73-5922b9122316@eisentraut.org>
 <CAOYmi+k6oSACjoFvCUPipeLJBOrH=OgaeY9BeN1Mpsjna8taZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <390f9699-6275-4e1e-a600-11452bee0576@eisentraut.org>
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <390f9699-6275-4e1e-a600-11452bee0576@eisentraut.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/67b7e52e-0d6e-4eb5-9318-fdcfa4e7ea51%40eisentraut.org>
Precedence: bulk

On 04.09.24 11:28, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 03.09.24 22:56, Jacob Champion wrote:
>>> The parse_strval field could use a better explanation.
>>>
>>> I actually don't understand the need for this field.  AFAICT, this is
>>> just used to record whether strval is valid.
>> No, it's meant to track the value of the need_escapes argument to the
>> constructor. I've renamed it and moved the assignment to hopefully
>> make that a little more obvious. WDYT?
> 
> Yes, this is clearer.
> 
> This patch (v28-0001) looks good to me now.

This has been committed.

About the subsequent patches:

Is there any sense in dealing with the libpq and backend patches 
separately in sequence, or is this split just for ease of handling?

(I suppose the 0004 "review comments" patch should be folded into the 
respective other patches?)

What could be the next steps to keep this moving along, other than stare 
at the remaining patches until we're content with them? ;-)