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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
