On 03/01/2016 02:09 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > 2016-02-29 2:40 GMT+01:00 Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com > <mailto:m...@joeconway.com>>: > > On 01/07/2016 09:08 AM, Joe Conway wrote: > > On 01/06/2016 10:36 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I think a design that was actually somewhat robust would require two > >> hooks, one at check_role and one at assign_role, wherein the first one > >> would do any potentially-failing work and package all required info > into > >> a blob that could be passed through to the assign hook.
> I see following issues: > > 1. Missing the possibility to pass custom data from SetRoleCheck_hook to > SetRoleAssign_hook. Tom mentioned it in his comment. You can pass the data between the two plugin hook functions in your extension itself, so I see no need to try to pass custom data through the backend. Do any of the other hooks even do that? I think the main point was to have two hooks. The potentially-failing work could be done during the check_role() hook and the collected info could be used during the assign_role() hook. This works fine with the patch as-is. > 2. Missing little bit more comments and an explanation why and when to > use these hooks. Doesn't look all that different from existing user hooks to me, but sure, I'll add a bit more to the comments. The thing I wish we had was a place in the docs where we list all the user plugin hooks. But as far as I know that doesn't exist (please correct me if I'm wrong) and I am not volunteering to create it just for the sake of this patch ;-) Thanks for the review! Joe -- Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
