Re: [PoC] Federated Authn/z with OAUTHBEARER

On 2025-03-20 Th 7:26 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2025-03-20 17:08:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
>>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 01:33:26PM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
>>>> So one question for the collective is -- putting Curl itself aside --
>>>> is having a basic-but-usable OAuth flow, out of the box, worth the
>>>> costs of a generic HTTP client?
>>> One observation is that security scanning tools are going to see the
>>> curl dependency and look at any CSVs related to them and ask us, whether
>>> they are using OAUTH or not.
>> Yes.  Also, none of this has addressed my complaint about the extent
>> of the build and install dependencies.  Yes, simply not selecting
>> --with-libcurl removes the problem ... but most packagers are under
>> very heavy pressure to enable all features of a package.
> How about we provide the current libpq.so without linking to curl and also a
> libpq-oauth.so that has curl support? If we do it right libpq-oauth.so would
> itself link to libpq.so, making libpq-oauth.so a fairly small library.
>
> That way packagers can split libpq-oauth.so into a separate package, while
> still just building once.
>
> That'd be a bit of work on the buildsystem side, but it seems doable.
>

That certainly seems worth exploring.


>>  From what's been said here, only a small minority of users are likely
>> to have any interest in this feature.  So my answer to "is it worth
>> the cost" is no, and would be no even if I had a lower estimate of
>> the costs.
> I think this is likely going to be rather widely used, way more widely than
> e.g. kerberos or ldap support in libpq. My understanding is that there's a
> fair bit of pressure in lots of companies to centralize authentication towards
> centralized systems, even for server applications.


Indeed. There is still work to do on OAUTH2 but the demand you mention 
is just going to keep increasing.


>
>
>> I don't have any problem with making a solution available to those
>> users who want it --- but I really do NOT want this to be part of
>> stock libpq nor done as part of the core Postgres build.  I do not
>> think that the costs of that have been fully accounted for, especially
>> not the fact that almost all of those costs fall on people other than
>> us.
> I am on board with not having it as part of stock libpq, but I don't see what
> we gain by not building it as part of postgres (if the dependencies are
> available, of course).
>

+1.


cheers


andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com