| From: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Florin Irion <irionr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | olivier cano <kindermoumoute(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Gabriele Bartolini <gabriele(dot)bartolini(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, david(at)pgbackrest(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: Supporting URI SAN in Certificate Authentication |
| Date: | 2026-08-27 14:49:41 |
| Message-ID: | CAOYmi+m-bkZz9+U8CiL1s+Bz7UendjbRYDeenDFMwYrbxyjUVw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 3:25 AM Florin Irion <irionr(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Well that is mainly how the user configures the pg_ident and their SANs, We can't do much about it, no?
> And initially I was looking for 1 to 1 dbuser and SAN, but it should jsut be dbuser<->ANY SAN (once we find the first one that authenticates the user the client requests we're good).
Right. (I think that's what Olivier was trying to say in the OP.)
> Yes, a user can organize the rules in every way they like , but we can not use different `clientname` in pg_hba, that is still teh same as we have now with e.g. CN and DN, no?
It's the "same", I guess, but you can only ever have one Subject, and
CN is a subset of DN. So IMO, it doesn't really make sense to combine
them. But that's not the case for SANs.
> If we were to change this , it should not be part of this work IMO, no? Or is there something I'm missing?
I just want to make sure that expectations are set appropriately. If
the desired end goal is that you can authenticate using the standard
Subject match _or_ a number of Subject Alternative Names (which seems
like a very reasonable thing for people to want), v1 of this feature
is unlikely to deliver that without a lot more explicit planning and
design. That's okay with me as long as it's also okay with the people
asking for the feature.
Thanks,
--Jacob
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2026-08-27 15:01:09 | Re: 019_replslot_limit.pl might fail due to checkpoint skipped |
| Previous Message | Nikita Malakhov | 2026-08-27 14:36:27 | Re: [(known) BUG] DELETE/UPDATE more than one row in partitioned foreign table |