public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Zsolt Parragi <[email protected]>
To: Jacob Champion <[email protected]>
Cc: Andrey Borodin <[email protected]>
Cc: Chao Li <[email protected]>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Cc: Michael Paquier <[email protected]>
Cc: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Improve OAuth discovery logging
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2026 19:45:07 +0000
Message-ID: <CAN4CZFP--Ec8hMgpu7JojgK9qS08bNnev0c6goA++T4Ozy8bOQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOYmi+kxfGEKw7frQPxWYEA6Qe4BLc683UCNPTYCLdCCV0b4Jw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN4CZFPim7hUiyb7daNKQPSZ8CvQRBGkVhbvED7yZi8VktSn4Q@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAN4CZFNNfhFCQdFWui5HWbQR60eM-cyndZ7YgSv7b5SKxB9C2A@mail.gmail.com>
<CAOYmi+mDSmh6RNizHRmMAwg4ZP2W=uai3Fr3-wm186NMypf_Pg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAN4CZFNJftK8NaREYaLi-wqpEz3=crQ=1+3f_XUVji=aOrDSWA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAOYmi+kjtmRMBdBU3_bGKGDoRSK2AErXbGtHkAjFRapcQNmjhA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAN4CZFNWBXtF-ML3yzdOvX3QEuUwVo5VrBzyWU3O=y-7SeDstA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAN4CZFNscs=hiOkRJYF39r7AD7ef9+MR+O2BQdEtE_2Ajdo5qw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAOYmi+nVzkoLjzNk_58e0NnUPi9uVXwmurK2QP6CzC2WOpqwbg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAN4CZFPjiUQbKo2q+ovs--AHkjvaE8OJyncB9xu5b+1gp=HHPQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAOYmi+=SR_nJJBh7UXZzK8Zbs21L2RUNkW3d9aPRkQOHj1bBPA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAN4CZFO7ju7fjjv+qwObP8_V-Tdx463zV8F7u_s6wtg9ANVWVg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAOYmi+kEYA0Tp2son-+Ti1wvSAPov87AVFf4qXATTOHRX1F2gg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAN4CZFOmym1BaV_U2V56aOyRp2JMrw5nfn6kwcAEcu_RWK-F3Q@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAN4CZFN7u1kX3_0cfyVvtfiWpORxnvZo=xCr9Ag-F5Onp-hpbA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAOYmi+kxfGEKw7frQPxWYEA6Qe4BLc683UCNPTYCLdCCV0b4Jw@mail.gmail.com>
> I don't
> want to escape the authentication flow from inside a SASL mech, though
> (it's unusual/invisible to other maintainers, plus it bypasses the
> ClientAuthentication_hook).
I tried to figure out if this is fine or not, but isn't it the same as
the existing ereport(ERROR, ...) calls everywhere in the sasl/scram
code? I didn't see any clear pattern, for example the LDAP code
clearly uses
ereport(LOG, ...);
return STATUS_ERROR;
even for internal/configuration errors, while the scram/sasl code
uses ereport(ERROR, ...) for those errors.
view thread (26+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Improve OAuth discovery logging
In-Reply-To: <CAN4CZFP--Ec8hMgpu7JojgK9qS08bNnev0c6goA++T4Ozy8bOQ@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox