On Thu, 2021-03-25 at 16:41 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On top of what's > proposed, would it make sense to have a second logdetail for the case > of a mock authentication? We don't log that yet, so I guess that it > could be useful for audit purposes? It looks like the code paths that lead to a doomed authentication already provide their own, more specific, logdetail (role doesn't exist, role has no password, role doesn't have a SCRAM secret, etc.).
--Jacob
