| From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Selena Deckelmann <selena(at)endpoint(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Make SIGHUP less painful if pg_hba.conf is not readable |
| Date: | 2009-03-05 19:19:05 |
| Message-ID: | 49B025A9.4010401@hagander.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Thursday 05 March 2009 18:04:42 Joshua Tolley wrote:
>> As an aside, is access() adequately portable, ok to use within the
>> backend, etc.? I just sort of took a shot in the dark.
>
> Using access() is usually not a good idea. In this case it would be better to
> check the return of the actual open() call for EPERM (or the equivalent for
> fopen(), whatever is used).
That's what we do in the proper fix in HEAD. It requires an API change
to backport it...
Given that I think this is the first time we've heard of this issue, I'm
thinking we should probably just not bother to backpatch it.
//Magnus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jaime Casanova | 2009-03-05 19:26:51 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: BUG #4689: Expanding the length of a VARCHAR column should not induce a table rewrite |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-03-05 19:16:19 | Re: Make SIGHUP less painful if pg_hba.conf is not readable |