Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes:
> On ons, 2011-06-15 at 17:50 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes:
>>> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>>> On non-Windows servers you could get this even safer by disabling the
>>>> TCP/IP socket altogether, and placing the Unix-domain socket in a
>>>> private temporary directory. The "port" wouldn't actually matter then.
>>> Yes, it would be nice to just create the socket in the current
>>> directory. The fact it doesn't work on Windows would cause our docs to
>>> have to differ for Windows, which seems unfortunate.
>> It still wouldn't be bulletproof against someone running as the postgres
>> user, so probably not worth the trouble.
> But the postgres user would normally be the DBA itself, so it'd be his
> own fault. I don't see how you can easily make any process safe from
> interference by the same user account.
Well, the point here is that it's not bulletproof, it's just making it
incrementally harder to connect accidentally. Given that Windows
wouldn't be covered, I don't see that it's worth the trouble compared to
just switching to a nondefault port number. (Am I wrong to think that
Windows users are more likely to mess up here?)
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
