Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1308340988.16852.8.camel@vanquo.pezone.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On ons, 2011-06-15 at 17:50 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> On non-Windows servers you could get this even safer by disabling the > >> TCP/IP socket altogether, and placing the Unix-domain socket in a > >> private temporary directory. The "port" wouldn't actually matter then. > > > Yes, it would be nice to just create the socket in the current > > directory. The fact it doesn't work on Windows would cause our docs to > > have to differ for Windows, which seems unfortunate. > > It still wouldn't be bulletproof against someone running as the postgres > user, so probably not worth the trouble. But the postgres user would normally be the DBA itself, so it'd be his own fault. I don't see how you can easily make any process safe from interference by the same user account.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: