Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Adam Brightwell <adam(dot)brightwell(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask
Date: 2018-03-21 03:14:47
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 05:44:22PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * David Steele (david(at)pgmasters(dot)net) wrote:
>> On 3/16/18 11:12 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> It seems to me that pg_basebackup and pg_receivexlog should have a -g
>> option to control the mode of the files that they write to disk (not
>> including the modes stored in the tar files).
>> Or perhaps we should just update the perms in the tar files for now and
>> leave the rest alone.
> Having options to pg_basebackup to control what's done makes sense to
> me- but whatever those options do, I'd expect them to apply equally to
> the tar files and to the files extracted with plain mode. Having those
> be different really strikes me as very odd.

Agreed for the consistency part, permissions should be applied
consistently for the folder and the tar format.

Having the option for pg_receivewal definitely makes sense to me, as it
is the one in charge of opening and writing the WAL segments. For
pg_basebackup, let's not forget that there is one tar file for each
tablespace, and that each file is received separately using a COPY
stream. There is some logic already which parses the tar header part of
an individual file in order to look for recovery.conf (see
ReceiveTarFile() in pg_basebackup.c). It would be possible to enforce
grouping permissions when receiving each file, and this would be rather
low-cost in performance I think. Honestly, my vote would go for having
the permissions set correctly by the source server as this brings
consistency to the whole experience without complicating the interface
of pg_basebackup, and this also makes the footprint of this patch on
pg_basebackup way lighter.

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2018-03-21 03:24:41 Re: [HACKERS] taking stdbool.h into use
Previous Message Andres Freund 2018-03-21 03:07:50 Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v12.2