On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 05:33:14PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I've adapted a sentence from the pg_hba.conf documentation so we stay
> consistent.
+ <para>
+ If the <replaceable>database-username</replaceable> begins with a
+ <literal>+</literal> character, then the operating system user can login as
+ any user belonging to that role, similarly to how user names beginning with
+ <literal>+</literal> are treated in <literal>pg_hba.conf</literal>.
+ Thus, a <literal>+</literal> mark means <quote>match any of the roles that
+ are directly or indirectly members of this role</quote>, while a name
+ without a <literal>+</literal> mark matches only that specific role.
+ </para>
Should this also mention that the behavior is enforced even in cases
where we expect a case-sensitive match?
> It's not really relevant. We're not comparing role names here; rather we
> look up two roles and then ask if one is a member of the other. I've
> added a comment.
>
> Thanks for the review (I take it you're generally in favor).
- if (case_insensitive)
+ if (regexp_pgrole[0] == '+')
+ {
+ /*
+ * Since we're not comparing role names here, use of case
+ * insensitive matching doesn't really apply.
+ */
+ Oid roleid = get_role_oid(pg_role, true);
+ Assert(false);
+ if (is_member(roleid, regexp_pgrole +1))
+ *found_p = true;
+ }
+ else if (case_insensitive)
Hmm. As check_ident_usermap() is now coded, it means that the case of
a syntax substitution could be enforced to use a group with the user
name given by the client. For example, take this ident entry:
mymap /^(.*)@mydomain\.com$ \1
Then, if we attempt to access Postgres with "+testrole@mydomain.com",
we would get a substitution to "+testrole", which would be enforced to
check on is_member() with this expected role name. I am not sure what
should be the correct behavior here.
--
Michael