> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
>> Thanks Andrew, Alvaro, and Chander. You've given me some thoughts to
>> toss around. Of course, any of these is going to be somewhat more
>> complex than using [ pg_ctl -w ]
> Yeah. I wonder if we shouldn't expend a bit more effort to make that
> way bulletproof. As I mentioned the other day, if there were a way for
> pg_ctl to pass down its parent's PID then we could have the postmaster
> exclude that as a false match, and then using pg_ctl would be just as
> safe as invoking the postmaster directly.
> The two ways I can see to do that are to add a command line switch
> to the postmaster, or to pass the PID as an environment variable,
> say "PG_GRANDPARENT_PID". The latter is a bit uglier but it would
> require touching much less code (and documentation).
Attached is a simple patch that uses the environment-variable approach.
This is a whole lot more self-contained than what would be needed to
pass the PID as an explicit switch, so I'm inclined to do it this way.
You could argue that a bad guy could confuse matters by intentionally
passing an existing postmaster's PID in this variable --- but someone
with the ability to launch the postmaster can probably also remove an
existing lockfile, so I don't think there's a credible security risk.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2009-08-26 23:39:12|
|Subject: Re: 8.5 release timetable, again|
|Previous:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2009-08-26 23:32:17|
|Subject: Re: Logging configuration changes|