Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH] Support using "all" for the db user in pg_ident.conf

From: Jelte Fennema <Jelte(dot)Fennema(at)microsoft(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: "isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com" <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH] Support using "all" for the db user in pg_ident.conf
Date: 2023-01-11 09:04:56
Message-ID: DBBPR83MB0507FEC2E8965012990A80D0F7FC9@DBBPR83MB0507.EURPRD83.prod.outlook.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> The confusion that 0001 is addressing is fair (cough, fc579e1, cough),
> still I am wondering whether we could do a bit better to be more

Yeah, even after 0001 it's definitely suboptimal. I tried to keep the changes
minimal to not distract from the main purpose of this patch. But I'll update
the patch to have some more. I'll respond to your other question first

> In what is your proposal different from the following
> entry in pg_ident.conf? As of:
> mapname /^(.*)$ \1

It's very different. I think easiest is to explain by example:

If there exist three users on the postgres server: admin, jelte and michael

Then this rule (your suggested rule):
mapname /^(.*)$ \1

Is equivalent to:
mapname admin admin
mapname jelte jelte
mapname michael michael

While with the "all" keyword you can create a rule like this:
mapname admin all

which is equivalent to:
mapname admin admin
mapname admin jelte
mapname admin michael

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Julien Rouhaud 2023-01-11 09:08:08 Re: Schema variables - new implementation for Postgres 15 (typo)
Previous Message Jelte Fennema 2023-01-11 08:59:27 Re: Allow +group in pg_ident.conf