On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 01:28:17PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> writes: >> On 3/12/18 3:28 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> In pg_rewind and pg_resetwal, isn't that also a portion which is not >>> necessary without the group access feature? > >> These seem like a good idea to me with or without patch 03. Some of our >> front-end tools (initdb, pg_upgrade) were setting umask and others >> weren't. I think it's more consistent (and safer) if they all do, at >> least if they are writing into PGDATA. > > +1 ... see a926eb84e for an example of how easy it is to screw up if > the process's overall umask is permissive.
Okay. A suggestion that I have here would be to split those extra calls into a separate patch. That's a useful self-contained improvement. -- Michael
Description: PGP signature