On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 08:19:05PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On Thursday 05 March 2009 18:04:42 Joshua Tolley wrote:
> >> As an aside, is access() adequately portable, ok to use within the
> >> backend, etc.? I just sort of took a shot in the dark.
> >
> > Using a
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Thursday 05 March 2009 18:04:42 Joshua Tolley wrote:
>> As an aside, is access() adequately portable, ok to use within the
>> backend, etc.? I just sort of took a shot in the dark.
>
> Using access() is usually not a good idea. In this case it would be better
> to
>
On Thursday 05 March 2009 18:04:42 Joshua Tolley wrote:
> As an aside, is access() adequately portable, ok to use within the
> backend, etc.? I just sort of took a shot in the dark.
Using access() is usually not a good idea. In this case it would be better to
check the return of the actual open(
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 09:47:55AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
> > Yeah, the big question is if we want to backport something like this at
> > all... Thoughts?
>
> The issue never even came up before, so I'd vote to not take any risks
> for it. How often do people mess up th
Magnus Hagander writes:
> Yeah, the big question is if we want to backport something like this at
> all... Thoughts?
The issue never even came up before, so I'd vote to not take any risks
for it. How often do people mess up the protections on pg_hba.conf?
regards, tom la
Joshua Tolley wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 10:28:42AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Joshua Tolley wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 09:43:55AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
So. I've updated the comment, and applied your patch. Thanks!
>>> What would it take to get it applied to a few e
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 10:28:42AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Joshua Tolley wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 09:43:55AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> So. I've updated the comment, and applied your patch. Thanks!
> >
> > What would it take to get it applied to a few earlier versions as
Joshua Tolley wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 09:43:55AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> So. I've updated the comment, and applied your patch. Thanks!
>
> What would it take to get it applied to a few earlier versions as well?
I guess you maintaining your own fork? ;-)
Simply put, earlier ver
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 09:43:55AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> So. I've updated the comment, and applied your patch. Thanks!
What would it take to get it applied to a few earlier versions as well?
- Josh
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Selena Deckelmann wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Selena Deckelmann writes:
>>> From the comment in hba.c, it appears that the desired behavior is to
>>> have the system ignore the failure,
>> I'm not sure how you could possibly read that comment that way.
>
> Right. Sorry, poor choice of words. I me
Tom Lane wrote:
> Selena Deckelmann writes:
>> From the comment in hba.c, it appears that the desired behavior is to
>> have the system ignore the failure,
>
> I'm not sure how you could possibly read that comment that way.
Right. Sorry, poor choice of words. I meant "don't die on reload",
essen
Selena Deckelmann writes:
> From the comment in hba.c, it appears that the desired behavior is to
> have the system ignore the failure,
I'm not sure how you could possibly read that comment that way.
It might be sane to distinguish initial load from reload, but I think
the behavior is correct as
This is my first patch. I hope it's not stupid.
We ran into a little issue today where permission/ownership on
pg_hba.conf was accidentally changed to something that the postgres user
could not read. When a SIGHUP was issued, the postmaster quit. That was
kind of a bummer.
>From the comment in
13 matches
Mail list logo
