From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>
Cc: Jacob Champion <pchampion@vmware.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Proposal: Save user's original authenticated identity for logging
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2021 12:32:09 -0500
Message-ID: <3344750.1612200729@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210201170605.GJ27507@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <c55788dd1773c521c862e8e0dddb367df51222be.camel@vmware.com>
<20210129220101.GE27507@tamriel.snowman.net>
<2829030.1611959442@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<c65fd6360d9a174dcf98b1e2e7d02ca654e0ca85.camel@vmware.com>
<2832058.1611963634@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CAM-w4HPaWxXZd7ZZ=DmLUDa-R_Dp=m7CbqFnH393zuY2uirWsQ@mail.gmail.com>
<3085246.1612108406@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20210201170605.GJ27507@tamriel.snowman.net>
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> This doesn't sound particularly workable: how would you manage
>> inside-the-database permissions? Kerberos isn't going to know
>> what "view foo" is, let alone know whether you should be allowed
>> to read or write it. So ISTM there has to be a role to hold
>> those permissions. Certainly, you could allow multiple external
>> identities to share a role ... but that works today.
> Agreed- we would need something in the database to tie it to and I don't
> see it making much sense to try to invent something else for that when
> that's what roles are. What's been discussed before and would certainly
> be nice, however, would be a way to have roles automatically created.
> There's pg_ldap_sync for that today but it'd be nice to have something
> built-in and which happens at connection/authentication time, or maybe a
> background worker that connects to an ldap server and listens for
> changes and creates appropriate roles when they're created. Considering
> we've got the LDAP code already, that'd be a really nice capability.
That's still got the same issue though: where does the role get any
permissions from?
I suppose you could say "allow auto-creation of new roles and make them
members of group X", where X holds the permissions that "everybody"
should have. But I'm not sure how much that buys compared to just
letting everyone log in as X.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, sfrost@snowman.net, stark@mit.edu, pchampion@vmware.com
Subject: Re: Proposal: Save user's original authenticated identity for logging
In-Reply-To: <3344750.1612200729@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox