* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Maybe so, but the proposed hook placement doesn't actually allow a > plugin module to be "involved" in the authorization --- we've already > decided the authorization is OK. All it can do there is some additional > initialization, which could equally well be done on first use (if any) > of the additional information.
Right, I agree that the existing patch isn't what should be done here.
> There might be some value in letting a plugin actually have some control
> over the authentication process, but I'm not sure offhand what a
> reasonable hook design would be.
Definitely needs more thought, but that's the direction that I think
makes more sense.
Thanks!
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
