Обсуждение: VALID UNTIL

Hi,

I have a hard time figuring out why my replication stopped with a message like

FATAL:  password authentication failed for user "foo"

in the logs. I thought it was some pg_hba.conf change, a pgpass modification,
or NOLOGIN option, it wasn't. I was out of options when I remembered to check
if there is a VALID OPTION option set. For my surprise, it wasn't exposed by
\du or even \du+.

euler=# \du
List of roles
-[ RECORD 1 ]----------------------------------------------
Role name  | euler
Attributes | Superuser, Create role, Create DB, Replication
Member of  | {}
-[ RECORD 2 ]----------------------------------------------
Role name  | foo
Attributes |
Member of  | {}

euler=# \du+
List of roles
-[ RECORD 1 ]-----------------------------------------------
Role name   | euler
Attributes  | Superuser, Create role, Create DB, Replication
Member of   | {}
Description |
-[ RECORD 2 ]-----------------------------------------------
Role name   | foo
Attributes  |
Member of   | {}
Description |

but after checking in the catalog I got it.

test=# select rolname,rolvaliduntil from pg_authid;rolname |     rolvaliduntil
---------+------------------------euler   |foo     | 2012-03-01 00:00:00-03
(2 rows)

Is there any reason why it is not exposed? What about exposing that
information in attributes or even in a separate column? It could help
troubleshooting quickly on this case.


--   Euler Taveira de Oliveira - Timbira       http://www.timbira.com.br/  PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento,
Suporte24x7 e Treinamento
 

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 11:20:05AM -0300, Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have a hard time figuring out why my replication stopped with a message like
> 
> FATAL:  password authentication failed for user "foo"
> 
> in the logs. I thought it was some pg_hba.conf change, a pgpass modification,
> or NOLOGIN option, it wasn't. I was out of options when I remembered to check
> if there is a VALID OPTION option set. For my surprise, it wasn't exposed by
> \du or even \du+.
> 
> Is there any reason why it is not exposed?

Oversight.

> What about exposing that information in attributes or even in a
> separate column? It could help troubleshooting quickly on this case.

I don't know how frequently people use VALID UNTIL, but I'm guessing
it's not terribly often because yours is the first comment about how
it's not exposed, so I'd tend toward putting it in attributes rather
than a separate column.

Cheers,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello@gmail.com> writes:
> The attached patch put VALID UNTIL into attributes column in verbose mode
> like example above.

Why would you confine it to verbose mode?  For most people it won't
matter, but for people who are using the feature, it seems like
important information.  Per the OP's complaint, it's particularly
important for those who have forgotten they're using the feature
(and hence would not think to specify "+" ...)
        regards, tom lane

Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello@gmail.com> writes:
> 2012/3/14 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
>> For most people it won't
>> matter, but for people who are using the feature, it seems like
>> important information.  Per the OP's complaint, it's particularly
>> important for those who have forgotten they're using the feature
>> (and hence would not think to specify "+" ...)

> You' re right, then I attached a new patch with your suggestion.

Applied with minor corrections (mostly, ensuring the displayed text
is translatable).
        regards, tom lane