From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PSA: Systemd will kill PostgreSQL |
Date: | 2016-08-16 07:41:39 |
Message-ID: | CAMsr+YHBt=WX7kFCwVYTYz1peyeeEhUG-VNPdQS-yofC1pHU2Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 16 August 2016 at 08:33, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> > On 08/15/2016 05:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Well, yeah, it's easy to fix once you know you need to do so. The
> >> complaint is basically that out-of-the-box, it's broken, and it's
> >> not very clear what was gained by breaking it.
>
> > You're welcome to argue with Lennart about that.
>
> Hah! I can think of more pleasant ways of wasting my time.
> <http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers>
>
I tried to ask on that bug for some more clarity on what exactly a "system
account" was, where this behaviour was documented, whether it should really
determine the system account uid threshold at COMPILE TIME by reading
login.defs from configure (!), etc.
I just got a "take it to the mailing list" sort of dismissal. I'd rather
stick my hand in a meat grinder than post to the systemd mailing list,
especially given the way the prior discussion on the topic went based on
the archives, so I left it at that.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gavin Flower | 2016-08-16 07:52:33 | Re: C++ port of Postgres |
Previous Message | Haribabu Kommi | 2016-08-16 07:39:44 | Re: System load consideration before spawning parallel workers |