Re: SYSTEM_USER reserved word implementation

From: "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bdrouvot(at)amazon(dot)com>
To: Jacob Champion <jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SYSTEM_USER reserved word implementation
Date: 2022-08-17 14:48:42
Message-ID: db5f852b-7e22-7b25-a0f3-5b4a67cd5be9@amazon.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 8/17/22 9:51 AM, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> On 8/16/22 6:52 PM, Jacob Champion wrote:
>
>> And it would also be good to add a similar test to
>> the authentication suite, so that you don't have to have Kerberos
>> enabled to fully test SYSTEM_USER.
>
> Agree, I'll look at what can be done here.
>
I added authentication/t/003_peer.pl in
v2-0006-system_user-implementation.patch attached.

It does the peer authentication and SYSTEM_USER testing with and without
a user name map.

$ make -C src/test/authentication check PROVE_TESTS=t/003_peer.pl
PROVE_FLAGS=-v

ok 1 - users with peer authentication have the correct SYSTEM_USER
ok 2 - parallel workers return the correct SYSTEM_USER when peer
authentication is used
ok 3 - user name map is well defined and working
ok 4 - users with peer authentication and user name map have the correct
SYSTEM_USER
ok 5 - parallel workers return the correct SYSTEM_USER when peer
authentication and user name map is used
1..5
ok
All tests successful.

That way one could test the SYSTEM_USER behavior without the need to
have kerberos enabled.

Regards,

--
Bertrand Drouvot
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Attachment Content-Type Size
v2-0006-system_user-implementation.patch text/plain 17.8 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Justin Pryzby 2022-08-17 14:54:35 shadow variables - pg15 edition
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2022-08-17 14:46:16 Re: POC: GROUP BY optimization