Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/ oc/src/sgml/client-auth.sgml oc/src/sgm ...
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/ oc/src/sgml/client-auth.sgml oc/src/sgm ... |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 825.1004741792@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/ oc/src/sgml/client-auth.sgml oc/src/sgm ... (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/ oc/src/sgml/client-auth.sgml oc/src/sgm ...
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/ oc/src/sgml/client-auth.sgml |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: >> Fix pg_pwd caching mechanism, which was broken by changes to fork >> postmaster children before client auth step. Postmaster now rereads >> pg_pwd on receipt of SIGHUP, the same way that pg_hba.conf is handled. > Tom, does a client do a kill() to its parent on password change? Right, it's basically the same as the way we handle checkpoint and SI-overrun signaling: /* * Signal the postmaster to reload its password-file cache. */if (IsUnderPostmaster) kill(getppid(), SIGHUP); > If this is true, people can't depend on editing pg_hba.conf and having > the change take affect _only_ when they sighup the postmaster. True. But recall that in all previous releases it's been completely unsafe to edit pg_hba.conf in place, so I don't regard this as a big step backwards. We could possibly set up the password-file-reload action to occur on some other, presently unused signal. But there aren't a lot of spare signal numbers left, and I'm not eager to use one up for this... regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: