Tom Lane wrote: > Ron Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Tom Lane wrote: >>> Isn't that usually, and more portably, handled in the filesystem >>> mount options? > >> Yes to both. I could imagine that for small systems/workstations >> you might have some files that want access time, and others that >> wanted NOATIME -- it seems the new flag lets you choose on a >> file-by-file bases. > > Personally, if I were an admin who wanted access times, I'd regard > the existence of such a flag as a security hole.
I'm not sure I see that. I'd have thought since postgresql already caches stuff in shared buffers, the atime of a postgresql file isn't reliable anyway; and outside of postgresql O_NOATIME doesn't seem to me to affect admins any worse the existence of utime(). OTOH, I'm not going to argue for the patch either. I think it'd be fair to say adding a linuxism and only benefiting novice/casual users isn't that exciting. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly