Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] PostgreSQL virtual hosting support

[Bruce Momjian]

> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> I think we had some discussions about changing the way that shared
> >> memory keys are generated, which might make this a less critical issue.
> >> But until something's done about that, this patch looks awfully
> >> dangerous.
> 
> > But do we yank it out for that reason?  I don't think so.
> 
> Do you want to put a bright red "THIS FEATURE MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR
> DATA" warning in the manual?  I think it'd be rather irresponsible of
> us to ship the patch without such a warning, unless someone builds a
> replacement interlock capability (or gets rid of the need for the
> interlock).
> 

Seeing that we went many releases with no lock, and people really have
to try to have the problem by specifying a non-standard socket file, I
don't feel terribly concerned.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026