Re: [PoC] Delegating pg_ident to a third party

From: Jacob Champion <pchampion(at)vmware(dot)com>
To: "peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com" <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PoC] Delegating pg_ident to a third party
Date: 2022-01-03 16:46:16
Message-ID: 0e0c038ab962c3f6dab00934fe5ae1ae115f44c0.camel@vmware.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 2021-12-17 at 10:06 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 17.12.21 00:48, Jacob Champion wrote:
> > WDYT? (My responses here will be slower than usual. Hope you all have a
> > great end to the year!)
>
> Looks interesting. I wonder whether putting this into pg_ident.conf is
> sensible. I suspect people will want to eventually add more features
> around this, like automatically creating roles or role memberships, at
> which point pg_ident.conf doesn't seem appropriate anymore.

Yeah, pg_ident is getting too cramped for this.

> Should we have a new file for this? Do you have any further ideas?

My experience with these configs is mostly limited to HTTP servers.
That said, it's pretty hard to beat the flexibility of arbitrary key-
value pairs inside nested contexts. It's nice to be able to say things
like

Everyone has to use LDAP auth
With this server
And these TLS settings

Except admins
who additionally need client certificates
with this CA root

And Jacob
who isn't allowed in anymore

Are there any existing discussions along these lines that I should take
a look at?

--Jacob

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Justin Pryzby 2022-01-03 16:50:12 Re: [PATCH] pg_stat_toast v0.4
Previous Message Andrey Borodin 2022-01-03 16:36:53 Re: Index-only scans vs. partially-retrievable indexes