> On Feb 13, 2026, at 21:13, Zsolt Parragi <[email protected]> wrote: > > Maybe something like PG_SASL_EXCHANGE_ABANDONED? > > This is the only one I wasn't sure of, I used RESTART because I was > focusing more on the intention of the server ("please restart > authentication with this additional information"), and a bit also on > the idea that later restart could stay even within the same > connection, both in this case and if we add support for > reauthentication on token expiration.
I think "abandoned" would still work as a descriptor if we eventually supported multiple SASL exchanges per connection. On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 7:01 PM Chao Li <[email protected]> wrote: > Looks like you forgot to update the commit message to change > PG_SASL_EXCHANGE_RESTART to PG_SASL_EXCHANGE_ABANDONED. Yes -- though keep in mind that committers will often rewrite commit messages from scratch. So while keeping it accurate and well-written should be the goal, perfection isn't required to move something into RfC. Speaking of which: Zsolt, would you mind adding this to the Commitfest? > "ctx->state = OAUTH_STATE_FINISHED;" is duplicated in the “if” and after the > “if”, so it can be pull up to before the “if”. +1 --Jacob
