| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Lockfile restart failure is still there :-( |
| Date: | 2005-03-18 01:57:52 |
| Message-ID: | 87ll8liulb.fsf@stark.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> We need to be able to write in the whole directory, not just the
> lockfile. But actually the point I am making above is in your favor:
> after adding a check on ownership, it would be a matter of your
> protection wishes what the directory protections need to be. Right
> now that check is an integral part of some non-obvious safety
> considerations.
Ah, I see. So yes, I was annoyed at last once when I changed permissions on
the postgres data directory and got errors telling me not to do that.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2005-03-18 02:00:01 | Re: Changing the default wal_sync_method to open_sync for |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-03-18 01:32:48 | Re: Excessive growth of pg_attribute and other system tables |