Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> What's your point? The script fails anyway if that bit doesn't work. > > > Is 'id' better than what we have now if 'id' isn't widely supported? > > I'm repeating myself, but: what's your point? 'id' exists on Linux, > and the script fails (in the worst possible way, ie, might remove > inappropriate shmem segments) on all other platforms if it's unable > to detect the correct EffectiveUser. I would argue that checking for a > numeric, nonzero EffectiveUser is going to make it safer not less so.
If it can be done more reliably than what we do not. We support much more than Linix, and I have not seen anyway say 'id' is available on all platforms. We can try 'id' if it exists and fall back if it doesn't. -- Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us SRA OSS, Inc. http://www.sraoss.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
