Jacob Champion <jchampion@timescale.com> writes:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 1:13 AM Drouvot, Bertrand <bdrouvot@amazon.com> wrote:
>> This is why I think username filtering with regular expressions would
>> provide its own advantages.
> I think your motivation for the feature is solid.
Yeah. I'm not sure that I buy the argument that this is more useful
than writing a role name and controlling things with GRANT ROLE, but
it's a plausible alternative with properties that might win in some
use-cases. So I see little reason not to allow it.
I'd actually ask why stop here? In particular, why not do the same
with the database-name column, especially since that does *not*
have the ability to use roles as a substitute for a wildcard entry?
> I think you're going to have to address backwards compatibility
> concerns. Today, I can create a role named "/a", and I can put that
> into the HBA without quoting it. I'd be unamused if, after an upgrade,
> my rule suddenly matched any role name containing an 'a'.
Meh ... that concern seems overblown to me. I guess it's possible
that somebody has an HBA entry that looks like that, but it doesn't
seem very plausible. Note that we made this exact same change in
pg_ident.conf years ago, and AFAIR we got zero complaints.
> Speaking of partial matches, should this feature allow them? Maybe
> rules should have to match the entire username instead, and sidestep
> the inevitable "I forgot to anchor my regex" problems?
I think the pg_ident.conf precedent is binding on us here. If we
make this one work differently, nobody's going to thank us for it,
they're just going to wonder "did the left hand not know what the
right hand already did?"
regards, tom lane
