| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jelte Fennema <Jelte(dot)Fennema(at)microsoft(dot)com> |
| 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 11:05:52 |
| Message-ID: | Y76YEHolPL4LIAtO@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 09:04:56AM +0000, Jelte Fennema wrote:
> 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
Thanks for the explanation, I was missing your point. Hmm. On top
of my mind, couldn't we also use a regexp for the pg-role rather than
just a hardcoded keyword here then, so as it would be possible to
allow a mapping to pass for a group of role names? "all" is just a
pattern to allow everything, at the end.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | vignesh C | 2023-01-11 11:30:51 | Re: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions) |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2023-01-11 11:05:34 | Re: meson oddities |