Hi,
On 6/22/22 6:32 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do
> not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender
> and know the content is safe.
>
>
>
> On 6/22/22 12:28, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:
>>> On 6/22/22 11:52, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> I think a case could be made for ONLY returning non-null when authn_id
>>>> represents some externally-verified identifier (OS user ID gotten via
>>>> peer identification, Kerberos principal, etc).
>>
>>> But -1 on that.
>>
>>> I think any time we have a non-null authn_id we should expose it. Are
>>> there examples of cases when we have authn_id but for some reason don't
>>> trust the value of it?
>>
>> I'm more concerned about whether we have a consistent story about what
>> SYSTEM_USER means (another way of saying "what type is it"). If it's
>> just the same as SESSION_USER it doesn't seem like we've added much.
>>
>> Maybe, instead of just being the raw user identifier, it should be
>> something like "auth_method:user_identifier" so that one can tell
>> what the identifier actually is and how it was verified.
>
> Oh, that's an interesting thought -- I like that.
>
Thanks Joe and Tom for your feedback.
I like this idea too and that's also more aligned with what
log_connections set to on would report (aka the auth method).
Baring any objections, I'll work on that idea.
Bertrand