On 2017-10-01 18:01:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2017-10-01 17:47:52 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >> So we can leave it out of there. OTOH I'm not a huge fan of security by
> >> obscurity. I guess this wouldn't be too bad a case.
>
> > I'd personally include it, give
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2017-10-01 17:47:52 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> So we can leave it out of there. OTOH I'm not a huge fan of security by
>> obscurity. I guess this wouldn't be too bad a case.
> I'd personally include it, given that we already allow and document
> ABRT. There's no me
On 2017-10-01 17:47:52 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 10/01/2017 04:48 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2017-10-01 16:42:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Andrew Dunstan writes:
> >>> On 09/30/2017 10:32 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Heh. I'm inclined to take it out. We could add a --use-t
On 10/01/2017 04:48 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-10-01 16:42:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>>> On 09/30/2017 10:32 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
Heh. I'm inclined to take it out. We could add a --use-the-force-luke
type parameter, but it doesn't seem worth it.
>
On 2017-10-01 16:42:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
> > On 09/30/2017 10:32 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> Heh. I'm inclined to take it out. We could add a --use-the-force-luke
> >> type parameter, but it doesn't seem worth it.
>
> > I agree, but I think we need this discussed
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 09/30/2017 10:32 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Heh. I'm inclined to take it out. We could add a --use-the-force-luke
>> type parameter, but it doesn't seem worth it.
> I agree, but I think we need this discussed on -hackers. Does anyone
> have an objection to allowing "
On 09/30/2017 10:32 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2017-09-30 22:28:39 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
But even after fixing that, there unfortunately is:
static void
set_sig(char *signame)
{
…
#if 0
/* probably should NOT provide SIGKILL */
