From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Takayuki Tsunakawa <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, Chris Marcellino <maps(at)levelview(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Feature: POSIX Shared memory support |
Date: | 2007-02-08 20:53:17 |
Message-ID: | 45CB8DBD.7060801@hagander.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> If we just didn't add the serial number at the end, then it would be
>> impossible to create a shared memory segment for the same port again.
>> That protects the port and not the datadir. But what if we change the
>> name of the shared memory segment to be that of the data directory
>> instead of the port?
>
> That would help if there's only one possible spelling of the data
> directory path ... otherwise not so much ...
Well, we could run GetFullPathName() on it
(http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa364963.aspx) I think that
should work - takes out the "relative vs absolute path" part at least.
It won't take care of somebody having a junction pointing at the data
directory and starting it against that one, but that's really someone
*trying* to break the system. You wouldn't do that by mistake...
Seems worthwhile to you? If so I can take a look at doing it when I get
some spare time.
//Magnus
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-02-08 21:03:14 | Re: [PATCHES] [pgsql-patches] Phantom Command IDs, updated patch |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-02-08 20:40:01 | Re: [PATCHES] [pgsql-patches] Phantom Command IDs, updated patch |