Re: Signals blocked during auth

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, PostgreSQL HACKERS <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Signals blocked during auth
Date: 2001-08-22 15:55:58
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.30.0108221753111.679-100000@peter.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane writes:

> I think this is fairly irrelevant, because a not-yet-backend should
> have a fairly short timeout (a few seconds) before just shutting
> down anyway, so that malfunctioning clients can't cause denial of
> service; the particular case you mention is just one scenario.

I have a note here about an authentication timeout on the order of a few
minutes. You never know what sort of things PAM or Kerberos can go
through behind the scenes.

> OTOH, it'd be easy enough to turn on SIGTERM/SIGQUIT too, if you
> think there's really any value in it.

I think that would be reasonable.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2001-08-22 16:03:33 Re: A fixed user id for the postgres user?
Previous Message Oleg Bartunov 2001-08-22 15:53:58 Re: GiST patches for 7.2 (please apply)