Re: [HACKERS] flock patch breaks things here

Massimo Dal Zotto <dz(at)cs(dot)unitn(dot)it> writes:
> In my opinion the socket and the pidfile should be created in a
> directory owned by postgres, for example /tmp/.Pgsql-unix, like does X.

The pidfile belongs at the top level of the database directory (eg,
/usr/local/pgsql/data/postmaster.pid), because what it actually
represents is that there is a postmaster running *for that database
group*.

If you want to support multiple database sets on one machine (which I
do), then the interlock has to be per database directory. Putting the
pidfile into a common directory would mean we'd have to invent some
kind of pidfile naming convention to keep multiple postmasters from
tromping on each other. This is unnecessarily complex.

I agree with you that putting the socket file into a less easily munged
directory than /tmp would be a good idea for security. But that's a
separate issue. On machines that understand stickybits for directories,
the security hole is not really very big.

At this point, the fact that /tmp/.s.PGSQL.port# is the socket path is
effectively a version-independent aspect of the FE/BE protocol, and so
we can't change it without breaking old applications. I'm not sure that
that's worth the security improvement.

What I'd like to see someday is a postmaster command line switch to tell
it to use *only* TCP connections and not create a Unix socket at all.
That hasn't been possible so far, because we were relying on the socket
file to provide a safety interlock against starting multiple
postmasters. But an interlock using a pidfile would be much better.
(Look around; *every* other Unix daemon I know of that wants to ensure
that there's only one of it uses a pidfile interlock. Not file locking.
There's a reason why that's the well-trodden path.)

regards, tom lane