public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Jacob Champion <[email protected]>
To: Zsolt Parragi <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [oauth] Split and extend PGOAUTHDEBUG
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2026 16:26:08 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOYmi+kivcSnazEJA=KWknd3azGYnU3mMq9SUvht5Zq74qNcYQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOYmi+k_et3yXpJ8op71-95j7OYg-kX5bWLgW9YTV_5G7f+O1A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN4CZFMmDZMH56O9vb_g7vHqAk8ryWFxBMV19C39PFghENg8kA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOYmi+k_et3yXpJ8op71-95j7OYg-kX5bWLgW9YTV_5G7f+O1A@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 2:41 PM Jacob Champion
<[email protected]> wrote:
> v2, attached, rebases this over 993368113. The big change is the
> removal of `custom-ca`; there were a couple of other tweaks to get
> both commits compiling independently.

Now for review. 0001:

I like how the UNSAFE: split works in practice. Implementation-wise, I
think I'd prefer that the debug flags be implemented as bits in a
uint32, and then we can cut down on the boilerplate.
fe-auth-oauth-debug.c is IMO too much code for what the feature is
providing. We should ideally be able to include this in a header from
both locations it's used.

I think `fast-retry` needs to be moved under UNSAFE and renamed to
something that doesn't sound "good". `dos-interval` maybe?

nitpick: `poll-counts` and `print-plugin-errors` choose different
naming conventions, and we're not referring to the poll() API for the
former. `call-count`? `dlopen`?

We need to test that ignored unsafe options are in fact ignored (the
parsed flag is currently being accumulated anyway, in contradiction to
the warning message).

I have a sample patch locally for these suggestions, if you'd like.

--

I'm not a fan of 0002; I don't think it provides enough useful
functionality to offset the cost. You said

> validators authors should be able to verify that mismatched
> configurations are rejected properly by the validator.

but "mismatched configuration" is kind of meaningless here: the
validator interacts with a token, not a client. Real-world validator
implementations already need to test against all manner of broken
tokens -- creating one that's signed by the wrong party shouldn't
really be harder to create than one that's signed by the right party
-- and the code to send a custom token from libpq is minimal (<40
lines).

--Jacob

view thread (13+ 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]
  Subject: Re: [oauth] Split and extend PGOAUTHDEBUG
  In-Reply-To: <CAOYmi+kivcSnazEJA=KWknd3azGYnU3mMq9SUvht5Zq74qNcYQ@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