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.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to