On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 6:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Munro writes:
>> I suppose the call to AcceptInvalidationMessages() could go at the end
>> of ClientAuthentication(). That'd be closer to the code that creates
>> the negative entry and immediately after the code that might modify
>> the
Thomas Munro writes:
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 9:35 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> That seems like a *really* ad-hoc place to put it. Why should it be
>> there, and not (say) somewhere inside InitializeSessionUserId, or maybe
>> (also?) inside PerformAuthentication? Why do the existing call sites for
>>
On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 1:50 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> What if we (optionally, of course) had an always-running background
> worker which connects to AD and streams down the changes happening by
> using AD's Change Notification system:
>
> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/AD/change
Greetings Thomas,
* Thomas Munro (thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com) wrote:
> Many people use custom scripts, ldap2pg or other similar tools to
> synchronise or manage their PostgreSQL roles from an LDAP server.
While I don't have any particular opinion on the proposed patch, I
wanted to share a thou
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 9:35 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Munro writes:
>> PerformAuthentication(MyProcPort);
>> + AcceptInvalidationMessages();
>> InitializeSessionUserId(username, useroid);
>
> That seems like a *really* ad-hoc place to put it. Why
Thomas Munro writes:
> I'd like to do this to postinit.c:
> PerformAuthentication(MyProcPort);
> + AcceptInvalidationMessages();
> InitializeSessionUserId(username, useroid);
> Any objections?
That seems like a *really* ad-hoc place to put it. Why
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I wanted to comment on that this morning but forgot as my mind was
> driven away by another problem. What if you used the Julien-Rouhaud's
> method of a custom script with only ";" used as query and -c? This
> won't run any queries, and wi
On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 04:25:18PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Yeah, using "pgbench -c 8 -j 8 -T 60 --connect -S -M prepared
> postgres" I wasn't able to measure a significant difference on my
> laptop. The performance was equally terrible, at around 940 TPS +/-
> 10 including connection time. A
On 2018-07-04 16:25:18 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> @@ -745,6 +746,7 @@ InitPostgres(const char *in_dbname, Oid dboid, const char
> *username,
> /* normal multiuser case */
> Assert(MyProcPort != NULL);
> PerformAuthentication(MyProcPort);
> +
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 12:10 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-07-03 19:44:21 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> On 2018-Jul-04, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> > PerformAuthentication(MyProcPort);
>> > + AcceptInvalidationMessages();
>> > InitializeSessionUserId
Hi,
On 2018-07-03 19:44:21 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Jul-04, Thomas Munro wrote:
>
> > Hello hackers,
> >
> > I'd like to do this to postinit.c:
> >
> > PerformAuthentication(MyProcPort);
> > + AcceptInvalidationMessages();
> > Initiali
On 2018-Jul-04, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Hello hackers,
>
> I'd like to do this to postinit.c:
>
> PerformAuthentication(MyProcPort);
> + AcceptInvalidationMessages();
> InitializeSessionUserId(username, useroid);
>
> Any objections?
Is there a measur
Hello hackers,
I'd like to do this to postinit.c:
PerformAuthentication(MyProcPort);
+ AcceptInvalidationMessages();
InitializeSessionUserId(username, useroid);
Any objections? Motivation:
Many people use custom scripts, ldap2pg or other similar to
13 matches
Mail list logo
