Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> writes:
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 5:46 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Meh ... that concern seems overblown to me. I guess it's possible
>>> that somebody has an HBA entry that looks like that, but it doesn't
>>> seem very plausible. Note that we made this exact same change in
>>> pg_ident.conf years ago, and AFAIR we got zero complaints.
> This concern does not sound overblown to me.
You have to assume that somebody (a) has a role or DB name starting
with slash, (b) has an explicit reference to that name in their
pg_hba.conf, (c) doesn't read the release notes, and (d) doesn't
notice that things are misbehaving until after some hacker manages
to break into their installation on the strength of the misbehaving
entry. OK, I'll grant that the probability of (c) is depressingly
close to unity; but each of the other steps seems quite low probability.
All four of them happening in one installation is something I doubt
will happen.
On the contrary side, if we make this work differently from the
pg_ident.conf precedent, or install weird rules to try to prevent
accidental misinterpretations, that could also lead to security
problems because things don't work as someone would expect. I see
no a-priori reason to believe that this risk is negligible compared
to the other one.
regards, tom lane
