MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
In-Reply-To: <DILVRJ0YYTRC.1NDGAS1S7B456@gmail.com>
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 May 2026 10:58:40 +0900
Message-ID: 
 <CAHGQGwFqBFkPzxfBad-1YzRPbapCq9TdXQC7zmSeqNisXyq6Gw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: postgres_fdw: use_scram_passthrough on user mapping is ignored
 when also set on server
To: Matheus Alcantara <matheusssilv97@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHGQGwFqBFkPzxfBad-1YzRPbapCq9TdXQC7zmSeqNisXyq6Gw%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 11:42=E2=80=AFPM 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/cont=
ext
validation machinery, not by any special-case code. We already have tests f=
or
context-sensitive option validation there. So adding such test for postgres=
_fdw
would be mostly redundant, I think. Thought?


> 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 leve=
ls
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.

Regards,

--=20
Fujii Masao