Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

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 (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

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

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group