Re: [HACKERS] heads up -- subtle change of behavior of new initdb

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: "Patches (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Hackers (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] heads up -- subtle change of behavior of new initdb
Date: 2003-11-14 06:57:36
Message-ID: 3FB47CE0.8010901@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches


darnit!

patch attached.

(Thinks - do we need to worry about suid sgid and sticky bits on data dir?)

andrew

Tom Lane wrote:

>Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
>
>
>>I just noticed tonight that the new initdb introduced a subtle change of
>>behavior. I use a shell script to automate the process of
>>- rm old data directory
>>- mkdir new data directory
>>- initdb
>>- load from pgdumpall
>>Now, that second step is not needed, but as of today it produces an
>>installation that won't start due to improper permissions on data
>>
>>
>
>That's a bug --- evidently the "fix permissions" path of control is
>wrong; can you take a look?
>
>
>
>

Attachment Content-Type Size
initdb.c.permpatch text/plain 623 bytes

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rajesh Kumar Mallah 2003-11-14 07:21:38 Help with count(*)
Previous Message Joe Conway 2003-11-14 06:44:58 Re: heads up -- subtle change of behavior of new initdb

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2003-11-14 12:27:51 Re: heads up -- subtle change of behavior of new initdb
Previous Message Joe Conway 2003-11-14 06:44:58 Re: heads up -- subtle change of behavior of new initdb