Re: Proposal: Save user's original authenticated identity for logging

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Jacob Champion <pchampion(at)vmware(dot)com>, "sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net" <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposal: Save user's original authenticated identity for logging
Date: 2021-01-31 15:53:26
Message-ID: 3085246.1612108406@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> I wonder if there isn't room to handle this the other way around. To
> configure Postgres to not need a CREATE ROLE for every role but
> delegate the user management to the external authentication service.

> So Postgres would consider the actual role to be the one kerberos said
> it was even if that role didn't exist in pg_role. Presumably you would
> want to delegate to a corresponding authorization system as well so if
> the role was absent from pg_role (or more likely fit some pattern)
> Postgres would ignore pg_role and consult the authorization system
> configured like AD or whatever people use with Kerberos these days.

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.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message vignesh C 2021-01-31 18:02:23 Re: Added schema level support for publication.
Previous Message Tom Lane 2021-01-31 15:49:41 Re: Proposal: Save user's original authenticated identity for logging