Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:10:46 -0500
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
 PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: Re: MD5 authentication needs help
Message-ID: <20150305211046.GI29780@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <20150304182731.GG29780@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <20150304191625.GB31979@momjian.us>
 <20150304192151.GJ29780@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <20150304193715.GC31979@momjian.us>
 <20150304194654.GL29780@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <20150304204327.GD31979@momjian.us>
 <20150304205603.GM29780@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <54F8B7FD.8070706@BlueTreble.com>
 <20150305201756.GG29780@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <54F8C3B8.5070802@BlueTreble.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="/45fpkxfdnDqFSDa"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <54F8C3B8.5070802@BlueTreble.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org


--/45fpkxfdnDqFSDa
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Jim Nasby (Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com) wrote:
> On 3/5/15 2:17 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >* Jim Nasby (Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com) wrote:
> >I'm all for it, though I would ask that we provide a way for superusers
> >to delegate the ability to reset locked accounts to non-superusers.
> >
> >I'd want to think about it a bit more before settling on using pg_authid
>=20
> I guess it's a question of how durable we want it to be. We could
> conceivable keep it in shared memory and let it wipe on a crash.
>=20
> But we already have code that ignores MVCC on a catalog table (IIRC
> for updating pg_class stats after vacuum) so the pattern is there. I
> don't see that we need more sophistication than that...

I'm not sure we should jump to that immediately..

> >to track the data.  In any case, I do think we need a way to disable
> >this ability for certain roles
>=20
> In the interest of something for this release... do we really need
> that? My thought is we just special-case the postgres user and be
> done with it. Though, if there's some other way to reset an account
> from the shell, no need to even special case postgres.

I don't think this is going to happen for 9.5 unless someone shows up
with code in the *very* short term..  Further, realistically, we would
want to design this properly and not just hack something together.

> Though, I guess if we just follow the normal GUC behavior of
> allowing per-database and -user overrides it wouldn't be that hard.

Yes, using the GUC-based approach would allow users to be excluded from
an overall (or per-database) policy.

	Thanks,

		Stephen

--/45fpkxfdnDqFSDa
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=eKBz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--/45fpkxfdnDqFSDa--