> 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.
