| From: | "Micha3 Mosiewicz" <mimo(at)lodz(dot)pdi(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: New pg_pwd patch and stuff |
| Date: | 1998-01-18 03:39:45 |
| Message-ID: | 34C17981.81249255@lodz.pdi.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> Hrmmmm...i don't quite agree with this. postmaster can handle one
> connection at a time, and then has to pass it off to the postgres backend
> process...DoS attacks are easier now then by forking before HBA. I just have
Forking is not so bad... but isn't there any exec also? And of course
it's a difference if your machine is overloaded by processes or if it's
only one service that doesn't respond becouse the access-controling code
is disabled.
Second question... if we speak only about forking postmaster, or it's
about forking-execing-opening files-reading-etc stuff? If it's only
fork, I would totally agree with you, otherwise I'm not sure which is
worse...
Mike
--
WWW: http://www.lodz.pdi.net/~mimo tel: Int. Acc. Code + 48 42 148340
add: Michal Mosiewicz * Bugaj 66 m.54 * 95-200 Pabianice * POLAND
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gordon Irlam | 1998-01-18 04:09:39 | unusb |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-01-18 03:37:19 | Re: [HACKERS] S_LOCK() change produces error... |