Re: [PoC] Federated Authn/z with OAUTHBEARER

Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>

From: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>, Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-03-19T22:02:57Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →
  1. meson: Fix install-quiet after clean

  2. oauth: Run Autoconf tests with correct compiler flags

  3. Link libpq with libdl if the platform needs that.

  4. Doc: correct spelling of meson switch.

  5. oauth: Correct SSL dependency for libpq-oauth.a

  6. oauth: Fix Autoconf build on macOS

  7. oauth: Move the builtin flow into a separate module

  8. Remove a stray "pgrminclude" annotation

  9. oauth: Simplify copy of PGoauthBearerRequest

  10. oauth: Improve validator docs on interruptibility

  11. oauth: Disallow synchronous DNS in libcurl

  12. oauth: Fix postcondition for set_timer on macOS

  13. oauth: Use IPv4-only issuer in oauth_validator tests

  14. Work around OAuth/EVFILT_TIMER quirk on NetBSD.

  15. oauth: Fix incorrect const markers in struct

  16. Add missing entry to oauth_validator test .gitignore

  17. cirrus: Temporarily fix libcurl link error

  18. Add support for OAUTHBEARER SASL mechanism

  19. libpq: Handle asynchronous actions during SASL

  20. require_auth: prepare for multiple SASL mechanisms

  21. Move PG_MAX_AUTH_TOKEN_LENGTH to libpq/auth.h

  22. Make SASL max message length configurable

  23. jsonapi: fully initialize dummy lexer

  24. common/jsonapi: support libpq as a client

  25. Remove fe_memutils from libpgcommon_shlib

  26. Revert ECPG's use of pnstrdup()

  27. Explicitly require password for SCRAM exchange

  28. Refactor SASL exchange to return tri-state status

On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 10:04 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes:
> > How feasible/fragile/weird would it be to dlopen() it on demand?
>
> FWIW, that would not really move the needle one bit so far as
> my worries are concerned.  What I'm unhappy about is the very
> sizable expansion of our build dependency footprint as well
> as the sizable expansion of the 'package requires' footprint.
> The fact that the new dependencies are mostly indirect doesn't
> soften that blow at all.
>
> To address that (without finding some less kitchen-sink-y OAuth
> implementation to depend on), we'd need to shove the whole thing
> into a separately-built, separately-installable package.
>
> What I expect is likely to happen is that packagers will try to do
> that themselves to avoid the dependency bloat.  AFAICT our current
> setup will make that quite painful for them, and in any case I
> don't believe it's work we should make them do.  If they fail to
> do that, the burden of the extra dependencies will fall on end
> users.  Either way, it's not going to make us look good.

It would increase the build dependencies, assuming a package
maintainer wants to enable as many features as possible, but it would
*not* increase the 'package requires' footprint, merely the 'package
suggests' footprint (as Debian calls it), and it's up to the user
whether they install suggested extra packages, no?