Hi,
On 2025-03-13 09:23:10 -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 3:16 PM Jacob Champion
> <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> > I missed PAM_CONV, sorry. I'm worried about the sendAuthRequest()
> > being done there; it doesn't seem safe to potentially ereport(ERROR)
> > and longjmp through a PAM call stack?
That indeed doesn't seem safe.
I am wondering if PAM is so fundamentally incompatible with handling
interrupts / a non-blocking interface that we have little choice but to
eventually remove it...
> PAM aside... Michael, what's your level of enthusiasm for the rest of this
> patch? I was confidently, embarrassingly wrong about how CheckPAMAuth
> worked, and it makes me think I need to put this down and take a completely
> new crack at it in 19.
FWIW, I continue to think that it's better to invest in making more auth
methods non-blocking, rather than adding wait events for code that could maybe
sometimes wait on different things internally.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
