From: | "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bdrouvot(at)amazon(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jacob Champion <jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: SYSTEM_USER reserved word implementation |
Date: | 2022-08-17 14:48:42 |
Message-ID: | db5f852b-7e22-7b25-a0f3-5b4a67cd5be9@amazon.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 8/17/22 9:51 AM, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> On 8/16/22 6:52 PM, Jacob Champion wrote:
>
>> And it would also be good to add a similar test to
>> the authentication suite, so that you don't have to have Kerberos
>> enabled to fully test SYSTEM_USER.
>
> Agree, I'll look at what can be done here.
>
I added authentication/t/003_peer.pl in
v2-0006-system_user-implementation.patch attached.
It does the peer authentication and SYSTEM_USER testing with and without
a user name map.
$ make -C src/test/authentication check PROVE_TESTS=t/003_peer.pl
PROVE_FLAGS=-v
ok 1 - users with peer authentication have the correct SYSTEM_USER
ok 2 - parallel workers return the correct SYSTEM_USER when peer
authentication is used
ok 3 - user name map is well defined and working
ok 4 - users with peer authentication and user name map have the correct
SYSTEM_USER
ok 5 - parallel workers return the correct SYSTEM_USER when peer
authentication and user name map is used
1..5
ok
All tests successful.
That way one could test the SYSTEM_USER behavior without the need to
have kerberos enabled.
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v2-0006-system_user-implementation.patch | text/plain | 17.8 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2022-08-17 14:54:35 | shadow variables - pg15 edition |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2022-08-17 14:46:16 | Re: POC: GROUP BY optimization |