Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

Hi Tom,

On 3/13/17 1:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> ... oh, and now that I've actually looked at the patch, I think it's
> a seriously bad idea to proceed by removing the mode parameter to
> PathNameOpenFile et al.  That's basically doubling down on an assumption
> that there are NO places in the backend, and never will be any, in which
> we want to create files with nondefault permissions.  That assumption
> seems broken on its face.  It also makes the patch exceedingly invasive
> for extensions.

I think it's a bad idea to have the same parameters copied over and over
throughout the code with slight variations (e.g. 0600 vs S_IRUSR |
S_IWUSR) but the same intent.

In all cases there is another version of the function (added by this
patch) that accepts a mode parameter.  In practice this was only needed
in one place, be_lo_export().  I think this makes a pretty good argument
for standardization/simplification in other areas.

Thanks,
-- 
-David
david@pgmasters.net