On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 04:08:08PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think that foreign tables ought to behave as views do, where they run as
> > the owner rather than the invoker.  No one has talked me out of it, but no
> > one has supported me on it either.  But I think it is too late to change
> > that now.
> That's an interesting point.  I think that you can imagine use cases
> for either method.  Obviously, if what you want to do is drill a hole
> through the Internet to another server and then expose it to some of
> your fellow users, having the FDW run with the owner's permissions
> (and credentials) is exactly right.  But there's another use case too,
> which is where you have something that looks like a multi-user
> sharding cluster.  You want each person's own credentials to carry
> over to everything they do remotely.

Hmmm, I don't think that's really right.

What I'd like instead is for the FDW client to tell the FDW server the
session_user/current_user on behalf of which it's acting, and let the
FDW server decide how to proceed.  This could be done by doing a SET
SESSION fdw.client.session_user... and so on.

We use Kerberos principal names as PG user/role names, _with_ @REALM
included, so a user foo@BAR is likely to make sense to the FDW server.

Of course, if you're not using Kerberos then the local and remote user
namespaces might be completely distinct, but by letting the FDW server
know a) the FDW client's username (via authentication) and b) the true
username on the client side (via SET/set_config()), the server might
have enough information to decide whether it trusts (a) to impersonate
(b) and how to map (b) to a local user.


Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to