Hi,
On 8/7/22 9:41 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Anyway, I was looking at Bertrand's patch, and I can see that it is
> doing nothing to move away the connection information that we have in
> Port away to a different structure passed down to the parallel
> workers,
Thanks for looking at it!
That's right. The main reason is that in the v2-0003 SYSTEM_USER patch
what is passed down to the parallel workers is not Port->authn_id but a
new "SystemUser" (defined in miscinit.c with CurrentUserId and friends).
> which is what I understand is a cleanup worth on its own
> based on the discussion of this thread. Hence, I still see a good
> argument for the introduction of ClientConnectionInfo that gets passed
> down to the workers.
I agree that it could it be useful too.
> Based on that, I think that we'd better finish
> v11-0002 (only ClientConnectionInfo, no SQL interface)
I agree.
> as a first step
> to build for the next ones, with authn being the first piece of
> information given to the workers. With a separate structure, the
> auth_method can also be a second member in ClientConnectionInfo,
> completing what would be needed to build SYSTEM_USER as the workers
> would have access to it.
but I'm not sure we should do it as a first step (given the fact that
this is not Port->authn_id that is passed down to the parallel workers
in the SYSTEM_USER patch).
What do you think about working on both (aka a) v11-002 only
ClientConnectionInfo and b) SYSTEM_USER) in parallel?
Thanks
--
Bertrand Drouvot
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
