Re: [PoC] Federated Authn/z with OAUTHBEARER
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Commits
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
meson: Fix install-quiet after clean
- a9ffb35274fb 18.0 landed
- 4ae03be54734 19 (unreleased) landed
-
oauth: Run Autoconf tests with correct compiler flags
- 3d23f68c5529 18.0 landed
- 990571a08b66 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Link libpq with libdl if the platform needs that.
- 4df477153a6b 19 (unreleased) landed
- 7bd752c1fb8e 18.0 landed
-
Doc: correct spelling of meson switch.
- 3faac9d14063 16.9 landed
- 766d2e673342 17.5 landed
- ac557793d478 18.0 landed
-
oauth: Correct SSL dependency for libpq-oauth.a
- 3db68212a393 18.0 landed
-
oauth: Fix Autoconf build on macOS
- 4ea1254f35b2 18.0 cited
-
oauth: Move the builtin flow into a separate module
- b0635bfda053 18.0 landed
-
Remove a stray "pgrminclude" annotation
- 764d501d24ba 18.0 cited
-
oauth: Simplify copy of PGoauthBearerRequest
- 1cf4c56480f8 18.0 landed
-
oauth: Improve validator docs on interruptibility
- 873c0fd67872 18.0 landed
-
oauth: Disallow synchronous DNS in libcurl
- d7e40845f923 18.0 landed
-
oauth: Fix postcondition for set_timer on macOS
- 434dbf6907ec 18.0 landed
-
oauth: Use IPv4-only issuer in oauth_validator tests
- 8d9d5843b55f 18.0 landed
-
Work around OAuth/EVFILT_TIMER quirk on NetBSD.
- c301a0a74a8a 18.0 landed
-
oauth: Fix incorrect const markers in struct
- 03366b61dfe5 18.0 landed
-
Add missing entry to oauth_validator test .gitignore
- 2c53dec7f440 18.0 landed
-
cirrus: Temporarily fix libcurl link error
- 9d9a71002a1c 18.0 landed
-
Add support for OAUTHBEARER SASL mechanism
- b3f0be788afc 18.0 landed
-
libpq: Handle asynchronous actions during SASL
- a99a32e43ed7 18.0 landed
-
require_auth: prepare for multiple SASL mechanisms
- f8d8581ed882 18.0 landed
-
Move PG_MAX_AUTH_TOKEN_LENGTH to libpq/auth.h
- e21d6f297158 18.0 landed
-
Make SASL max message length configurable
- 6d16f9debae0 18.0 landed
-
jsonapi: fully initialize dummy lexer
- 41b023946dfd 18.0 landed
-
common/jsonapi: support libpq as a client
- 0785d1b8b2fa 18.0 landed
-
Remove fe_memutils from libpgcommon_shlib
- f1976df5eaf2 18.0 landed
-
Revert ECPG's use of pnstrdup()
- f0096ef13be2 13.17 landed
- 3557185538fe 14.14 landed
- 2de129b356bf 15.9 landed
- ee2997c678d8 16.5 landed
- e9e05c655069 17.0 landed
- 5388216f6adc 18.0 landed
-
Explicitly require password for SCRAM exchange
- adcdb2c8dda4 17.0 landed
-
Refactor SASL exchange to return tri-state status
- 24178e235ea5 17.0 landed
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. > 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. > 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). Greetings, Andres Freund