| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, 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: | 2018-03-13 17:28:17 |
| Message-ID: | 25105.1520962097@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> writes:
> On 3/12/18 3:28 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> In pg_rewind and pg_resetwal, isn't that also a portion which is not
>> necessary without the group access feature?
> These seem like a good idea to me with or without patch 03. Some of our
> front-end tools (initdb, pg_upgrade) were setting umask and others
> weren't. I think it's more consistent (and safer) if they all do, at
> least if they are writing into PGDATA.
+1 ... see a926eb84e for an example of how easy it is to screw up if
the process's overall umask is permissive.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chapman Flack | 2018-03-13 17:31:24 | Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask |
| Previous Message | Michail Nikolaev | 2018-03-13 16:47:10 | Re: [WIP PATCH] Index scan offset optimisation using visibility map |