Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> Please note that the CF entry has been marked as committed. We should
> really do something about having a cleaner separation between SASL,
> the mechanisms and the AUTH_REQ_* codes, in the long term, though
> honestly I don't know yet what would be the most elegant and the least
> error-prone approach. And for anything that touches authentication,
> simpler means better.
I've taken another shot at this over on the OAuth thread [1], for
those who are still interested; see v40-0002. It's more code than my
previous attempt, but I think it does a clearer job of separating the
two concerns.
Thanks,
--Jacob
[1] https://postgr.es/m/CAOYmi+=FzVg+C-pQHCwjW0qU-POHmzZaD2z3CdsACj==14H8kQ@mail.gmail.com
