Message-ID: <fd412b8e-fab5-43fe-b18d-3e035e4998a7@nataraj.su>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2026 14:58:52 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Custom oauth validator options
To: Zsolt Parragi <zsolt.parragi@percona.com>,
 =?UTF-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro_Herrera?= <alvherre@kurilemu.de>
Cc: 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
References: <CAN4CZFPmF9fGOcFubwOxqXymhVo_RvbUx3bLoYQcfk=f0mwECw@mail.gmail.com>
 <202601281620.m3hrqtih5b2w@alvherre.pgsql>
 <CAN4CZFPUfTj-BF-m5=F7_MnY_T3+Qh-DuG7N7ojdbJDkT8JHeA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US, ru-RU
From: Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan@nataraj.su>
In-Reply-To: <CAN4CZFPUfTj-BF-m5=F7_MnY_T3+Qh-DuG7N7ojdbJDkT8JHeA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/fd412b8e-fab5-43fe-b18d-3e035e4998a7%40nataraj.su>
Precedence: bulk


On 28.01.2026 22:21, Zsolt Parragi wrote:
>> but I wonder if this is something we
>> should attempt in the context of the larger refactoring done by the
>> patch series here,
> That patch series is interesting but it is about SQL (table, index,
> operator) options, while this is about guc variable validation and
> extension. These seem unrelated to me.

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.

And I agree with him. Please have a look at 
src/backend/access/common/options.c in that patch. I almost sure this 
code can be reused for GUC options too.

Whole https://commitfest.postgresql.org/patch/4688/ is a bit outdated, 
and need rebase, but options.c from it is as good as it was before.

And we've just recently committed a small fix that have been blocking 
4688's patch rebase. I have plans to rebase it in not so distant future.

It you find it useful for your tasks and even would like to join to 
review (at least for options.c part) I would do it with higher priority.
(but it is still my weekend-days project, so it can't be extremely fast)