Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2025 11:22:21 -0400
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>,
	Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>,
	Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>,
	Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>,
	Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
	Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
	Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81@gmail.com>,
	Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>
Subject: Re: [PoC] Federated Authn/z with OAUTHBEARER
Message-ID: <Z_U_LRahVSGVz2ml@momjian.us>
References: <Z_QdtqYmSggALamF@msg.df7cb.de>
 <CAOYmi+=YjmfJ+U6RTHfiXEFt9xJzaHnnbNSgSKahWr774_xGdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <Z_RKf5IPsxD6YHCn@msg.df7cb.de>
 <CAOYmi+kt5UvPOXXXT9w_nHBNgcqiTQWS2j=D9qJaewvmO4iaAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOYmi+m2-2TH5AP7-8Knm_gcSiEaZVPGeUkfZeCLmYH395MYgA@mail.gmail.com>
 <B2A4AB83-C99D-4DF7-A310-50BF857739DA@yesql.se>
 <Z_Uzde7a1lCFaqfW@momjian.us>
 <CAOYmi+mrYnuwMEnpYWA4FWFtDCe4rMKavDrKQPpV43u=zmR8Xg@mail.gmail.com>
 <Z_U9L_UsfZtP_qnT@momjian.us>
 <a7apd2ywdtigk56cxtvmg4xhxktkqhhubgzljwpmmf3dlpztkp@mr7l2vx6i222>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <a7apd2ywdtigk56cxtvmg4xhxktkqhhubgzljwpmmf3dlpztkp@mr7l2vx6i222>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Z_U_LRahVSGVz2ml%40momjian.us>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr  8, 2025 at 11:20:11AM -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2025-04-08 11:13:51 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr  8, 2025 at 08:04:22AM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 7:32 AM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > > > Uh, where are we on the inclusion of curl in our build?  Maybe it was
> > > > explained but I have not seen it.
> > > 
> > > The above is discussing a patch to split this into its own loadable
> > > module. Andres and Christoph's feedback has been shaping where we put
> > > that module, exactly.
> > 
> > Uh, I was afraid that was the case, which is why I asked.  We have just
> > hit feature freeze, so it is not good that we are still "shaping" the
> > patch.  Should we consider reverting it?  It is true we still "adjust"
> > patches after feature freeze.
> 
> You brought the dependency concern up well after the feature was merged, after
> it had been in development for a *long* time. It wasn't a secret that it had a
> dependency on curl.  I don't think it's fair to penalize a feature's authors
> to not finish implementing a complicated and completely new requirement within
> 17 days.

Fair point --- I was just asking.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.