Greetings, On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 17:02 Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2022-03-16 18:50:23 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > First, let's be clear- we aren't actually talking about custom or > > pluggable authentication here, at least when it comes to PG as a > > project. For it to actually be pluggable, it needs to be supported on > > both the client side and the server side, not just the server side. > > > > That this keeps getting swept under the carpet makes me feel like this > > isn't actually an argument about the best way to move the PG project > > forward but rather has another aim. > > This is insulting and unjustified. IMO completely inappropriate for the > list / > community. I've also brought this up privately, but I thought it important > to > state so publically. I am concerned. I don’t intend to insult you or anyone else on this thread. I’m sorry. This isn’t the first time I asked about this on this thread, yet the question about why this is only being discussed as backend changes, and with the only goal seeming to be to have a backend loadable module, without anything on the client side for something that’s clearly both a server and client side concern, seems to just be ignored, which make me feel like my comments and the concerns that I raise aren’t being appreciated. I had drafted a response to your private email to me but hadn’t wanted to send it without going over it again after taking time to be sure I had cooled down and was being level-headed in my response. I am sorry. I am still concerned. Thanks, Stephen >
