From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: heads up -- subtle change of behavior of new initdb |
Date: | 2003-11-14 13:08:40 |
Message-ID: | 3FB4D3D8.1090304@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
The shell script said this:
$ECHO_N "fixing permissions on existing directory $PGDATA...
"$ECHO_C
chmod go-rwx "$PGDATA" || exit_nicely
There's no more rationale than that for this patch.
I'm inclined to agree with you, though.
cheers
andrew
Greg Stark wrote:
>>+ if (!chmod(pg_data,0700))
>>
>>
>
>Out of curiosity, what was the rationale for using 0700? I know it was a pain
>for me when I had a script to monitor the tmp usage. Surely read access to
>privileged users isn't really a problem? I'm thinking more of loosening the
>paranoia check elsewhere rather than this default.
>
>Wouldn't at least 0750 be safe? That way putting a user in the postgres group
>would grant him access to be able to browse around and read the files in
>pg_data.
>
>Actually I should think 02750 would be better so that the group is inherited
>by subdirectories.
>
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Cramer | 2003-11-14 13:59:05 | Re: ALTER TABLE modifications |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-11-14 12:53:01 | Re: heads up -- subtle change of behavior of new initdb |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Cramer | 2003-11-14 13:59:05 | Re: ALTER TABLE modifications |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-11-14 12:53:01 | Re: heads up -- subtle change of behavior of new initdb |