On 12 December 2016 at 22:39, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> wrote:
> * Throw an error if an "authorization identity" is given. ATM, we just
> ignore it, but seems better to reject the attempt than do something that
> might not be what the client expects.
Yeah. That might be an opportunity to make admins' and connection
poolers' lives much happier down the track, but first we'd need a way
of specifying a mapping for the other users a given user is permitted
to masquerade as (like we have for roles and role membership). We have
SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION already, which has all the same benefits and
security problems as allowing connect-time selection of authorization
identity without such a framework. And we have SET ROLE.
ERRORing is the right thing to do here, so we can safely use this
protocol functionality later if we want to allow user masquerading.
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: