Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Re: New pg_pwd patch and stuff

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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


WWW:  tel: Int. Acc. Code + 48 42 148340
add: Michal Mosiewicz  *  Bugaj 66 m.54 *  95-200 Pabianice  *  POLAND

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Gordon IrlamDate: 1998-01-18 04:09:39
Subject: unusb
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 1998-01-18 03:37:19
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] S_LOCK() change produces error...

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group