Re: allow specifying direct role membership in pg_hba.conf

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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