Re: Keystone auth in PostgreSQL

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Vivek Singh Raghuwanshi <vivekraghuwanshi(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Keystone auth in PostgreSQL
Date: 2012-03-16 01:38:20
Message-ID: 20551.1331861900@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> writes:
> From my vantage point, a rehash of federated authentication of some
> kind would be enormously useful, but it's not really clear if there
> are any concrete implementations worth supporting directly: I only
> wish it was much easier to delegate authentication so someone could
> implement, say, Keystone without excessive contortion. (Or maybe
> someone just needs to vend some advice on the "proper" way to
> delegate).

Our standard answer when someone asks for $random-auth-method is to
suggest that they find a PAM module for it and use PAM. I wouldn't
want to claim that PAM is a particularly great interface for this
sort of thing, but it's out there and I don't know of any serious
competition. The alternative of supporting $random-auth-method
directly doesn't scale very nicely...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2012-03-16 01:52:12 Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2012-03-16 00:53:05 Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt