From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, PostgreSQL HACKERS <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Signals blocked during auth |
Date: | 2001-08-22 15:55:58 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.30.0108221753111.679-100000@peter.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane writes:
> I think this is fairly irrelevant, because a not-yet-backend should
> have a fairly short timeout (a few seconds) before just shutting
> down anyway, so that malfunctioning clients can't cause denial of
> service; the particular case you mention is just one scenario.
I have a note here about an authentication timeout on the order of a few
minutes. You never know what sort of things PAM or Kerberos can go
through behind the scenes.
> OTOH, it'd be easy enough to turn on SIGTERM/SIGQUIT too, if you
> think there's really any value in it.
I think that would be reasonable.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-08-22 16:03:33 | Re: A fixed user id for the postgres user? |
Previous Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2001-08-22 15:53:58 | Re: GiST patches for 7.2 (please apply) |