Re: Add doc advice about systemd RemoveIPC

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Peter Eisentraut <
peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:

> On 12/31/16 11:43 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> >> I still think that some wording in the direction of the fact that the
> >> majority of all users won't actually have this problem is the right
> thing
> >> to do (regardless of our previous history in the area as pointed out by
> >> Craig)
> >
> > +1. The use-a-system-user solution is the one that's in place on the
> > ground for most current PG users on affected platforms. We should
> explain
> > that one first and make clear that platform-specific packages attempt to
> > set it up that way for you. The RemoveIPC technique should be documented
> > as a fallback to be used if you can't/won't use a system userid.
>
> How about this version, which shifts the emphasis a bit, as suggested?
>
>
Looks much better.

+ <para>
+ If <productname>systemd</productname> is in use, some care must be
taken
+ that IPC resources (shared memory and semaphores) are not prematurely
+ removed by the operating system. This is especially of concern when
+ installing PostgreSQL from source. Users of distribution packages of
+ PostgreSQL are less likely to be affected.
+ </para>

I would add "are less likely to be affected as the postgres user is
normally created as a system user" or something like that -- to indicate
*why* they are less likely to be affected (and it also tells people that if
they change the user, then they might become affected again).

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/