On Thu, 2021-03-25 at 16:41 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On top of what's
> proposed, would it make sense to have a second logdetail for the case
> of a mock authentication? We don't log that yet, so I guess that it
> could be useful for audit purposes?
It looks like the code paths that lead to a doomed authentication
already provide their own, more specific, logdetail (role doesn't
exist, role has no password, role doesn't have a SCRAM secret, etc.).
--Jacob