On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 4:17 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > It seems like everyone was generally in favor of this. I looked around > the internet for caveats but everyone was basically saying, you should > definitely do this. > > Why not for EXEC_BACKEND? > > O_CLOEXEC is a newer interface. There are older systems that don't have > it but have FD_CLOEXEC for fcntl(). We should use that as a fallback. > > Have you gone through the code and checked for other ways file > descriptors might get opened? Here is a blog posts that lists some > candidates: http://udrepper.livejournal.com/20407.html > > Ideally, we would have a test case that exec's something that lists the > open file descriptors, and we check that there are only those we expect. > > The comment "We don't expect execve() calls inside the postgres code" is > not quite correct, as we do things like archive_command and COPY to > program (see OpenPipeStream()).
Oskari, are you planning to answer to this review? As the thread has died 3 weeks ago, I am marking this as returned with feedback. Don't hesitate to change the status of the patch if you have a new version. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
