Re: [PoC] Federated Authn/z with OAUTHBEARER - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jacob Champion
Subject Re: [PoC] Federated Authn/z with OAUTHBEARER
Date
Msg-id CAOYmi+m5SikhKkmygTJTQx0kgfy7oiuMWMnU4NZsY7VL2jWG8g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PoC] Federated Authn/z with OAUTHBEARER  (Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Dec 15, 2024 at 2:18 PM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> wrote:
> I think we should, I just now experimented with setting the server major
> version (backed by PG_VERSION_NUM) in the callback struct and added a simple
> test.  I'm not sure if there is a whole lot more we need, maybe an opaque
> integer for the module to identify its version?

I think PG_VERSION_NUM should be handled by the standard
PG_MODULE_MAGIC. But an integer for the validator version would be
good, I think.

> > --with-libcurl/-Dlibcurl, and the Autoconf side uses PKG_CHECK_MODULES
> > exclusively.
>
> Why only use PKG_CHECK_MODULES for this rather than treating it more like other
> dependencies where we fall back on other methods if not found?

That was from Peter's request up in [1]. (I don't have strong opinions
on which to support, but I am vaguely persuaded by the idea of parity
between Meson and Autoconf.)

> While I'm
> clearly not the target audience, I build libcurl all the time and being able to
> point to a directory would be nice.

Doesn't the PKG_CONFIG_PATH envvar let you do that for Autoconf? Or,
if you're using Meson, -Dpkg_config_path? I was using the latter for
my local Curl builds.

> There's also the curl-config utility which
> should be in all packaged versions.

Hmm, I wonder if Meson supports alternative names for pkg-config.
Though I guess the --version handling would be different between the
two?

--Jacob

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6bde5f56-9e7a-4148-b81c-eb6532cb3651%40eisentraut.org



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Melanie Plageman
Date:
Subject: Re: Count and log pages set all-frozen by vacuum
Next
From: Richard Guo
Date:
Subject: Re: Eager aggregation, take 3