From: | Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | "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: | 2021-05-17 20:31:15 |
Message-ID: | 60A2D293.6040907@anastigmatix.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 05/17/21 16:15, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> The row is selected by the combination of username/database/ipaddress.
> But you have to pick the minimum TLS version before the client has
> sent that... Basically we have to make the choice long before we've
> even started looking at pg_hba.
Use the peer IP address to pre-filter the available pg_hba entries to
those pertaining to that address ... choose a min protocol version that's
the min specified among those ... then get the username and database name
(by which point a protocol has been negotiated), then further filter the
list down to those pertaining to that user and database and allowing that
protocol version?
Yes, clunky, but avoids a more ambitious redesign of pg_hba.
I'm not sure a more ambitious redesign would be a bad thing in principle;
the pg_hba.conf syntax seems rather clunky and limiting to begin with,
and I keep wondering why it isn't in shared tables or something. But
I suppose a lot of external admin tools have some knowledge of it?
Regards,
-Chap
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2021-05-17 20:32:07 | Re: PG 14 release notes, first draft |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2021-05-17 20:15:59 | Re: allow specifying direct role membership in pg_hba.conf |