From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: allow specifying direct role membership in pg_hba.conf |
Date: | 2021-05-14 19:00:01 |
Message-ID: | 20210514190001.GL20766@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greetings,
* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> > On 5/13/21 7:38 PM, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> >> I've attached a small patch that allows specifying only direct members
> >> of a group in pg_hba.conf.
>
> > Do we really want to be creating two classes of role membership?
>
> Yeah, this seems to be going against the clear meaning of the
> SQL spec. I realize you can argue that pg_hba.conf doesn't have
> to follow the spec, but it doesn't seem like a terribly good idea
> to interpret role membership differently in different places.
Agreed.
The lack of any particular justifcation for wanting this isn't a useful
way to propose a patch either.
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-05-14 19:35:26 | Re: allow specifying direct role membership in pg_hba.conf |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2021-05-14 18:57:48 | Re: allow specifying direct role membership in pg_hba.conf |