| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PG in container w/ pid namespace is init, process exits cause restart |
| Date: | 2021-05-04 19:57:39 |
| Message-ID: | 40db88e6-cff4-5b19-ceef-c28157ba4ccf@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/3/21 5:13 PM, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>
>
>> Maybe we should put in a startup-time check, analogous to the
>> can't-run-as-root test, that the postmaster mustn't be PID 1.
> Given that a number of minimal `init`s already exist specifically for
> the case of running a single application in a container, I don't think
> Postgres should to reinvent that wheel. A quick eyball of the output of
> `apt search container init` on a Debian Bullseyse system reveals at
> least four:
>
> - https://github.com/Yelp/dumb-init
> - https://github.com/krallin/tini
> - https://github.com/fpco/pid1
> - https://github.com/openSUSE/catatonit
>
> The first one also explains why there's more to being PID 1 than just
> handling reparented children.
>
I looked at the first of these, and it seems perfectly sensible. So I
agree all we really need to do is refuse to run as PID 1.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-05-04 20:35:39 | Re: PG in container w/ pid namespace is init, process exits cause restart |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-05-04 19:47:41 | Re: WIP: WAL prefetch (another approach) |