MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAN4CZFPmF9fGOcFubwOxqXymhVo_RvbUx3bLoYQcfk=f0mwECw@mail.gmail.com>
 <202601281620.m3hrqtih5b2w@alvherre.pgsql> <CAN4CZFPUfTj-BF-m5=F7_MnY_T3+Qh-DuG7N7ojdbJDkT8JHeA@mail.gmail.com>
 <fd412b8e-fab5-43fe-b18d-3e035e4998a7@nataraj.su>
In-Reply-To: <fd412b8e-fab5-43fe-b18d-3e035e4998a7@nataraj.su>
From: Zsolt Parragi <zsolt.parragi@percona.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2026 13:00:57 +0000
Message-ID: <CAN4CZFMCh3vOWGPbU5pTB-bwnoAtgFuDJmGGv7z7xeez+WJiag@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Custom oauth validator options
To: Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan@nataraj.su>
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro_Herrera?= <alvherre@kurilemu.de>, 
	Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>, VASUKI M <vasukianand0119@gmail.com>, 
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, david.g.johnston@gmail.com, 
	Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, myon@debian.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAN4CZFMCh3vOWGPbU5pTB-bwnoAtgFuDJmGGv7z7xeez%2BWJiag%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

> This patch suggests context independent API for managing extension
> defined sets of options. It is used for
> relation options and similar options, but cat be also used for any
> options sets, may be with small modifications.
>
> GUC options are almost same options as relation options. That is why, I
> guess, Alvaro suggested you to look at this patch.

Yes, but wouldn't that still require a generic refactoring of GUCs?
I'm not saying that would be a bad thing, but that's a big task in
itself.

But if I think about it in the general context of this thread (adding
extension options to pg_hba, ignoring the part that I tried to
implement it with GUCs in the current patch), that can be related.

Thanks for the clarification, I'll look into it in more detail.