On Sat, Aug 06, 2022 at 10:59:26AM -0400, Joe Conway wrote: > I am not sure how else we should interpret SYSTEM_USER -- if it isn't > port->authn_id what else would you propose it should be?
What you say sounds rather right, but I was wondering mainly what Oracle and SQL server report when it comes to other authentication methods like SSPI or a cert, where we don't use a user name but some data dependent on the auth method. And I have no experience with these. Anyway, I was looking at Bertrand's patch, and I can see that it is doing nothing to move away the connection information that we have in Port away to a different structure passed down to the parallel workers, which is what I understand is a cleanup worth on its own based on the discussion of this thread. Hence, I still see a good argument for the introduction of ClientConnectionInfo that gets passed down to the workers. Based on that, I think that we'd better finish v11-0002 (only ClientConnectionInfo, no SQL interface) as a first step to build for the next ones, with authn being the first piece of information given to the workers. With a separate structure, the auth_method can also be a second member in ClientConnectionInfo, completing what would be needed to build SYSTEM_USER as the workers would have access to it. Am I getting that right? -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
