Joshua Tolley wrote:
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 10:28:42AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Joshua Tolley wrote:
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 09:43:55AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
So. I've updated the comment, and applied your patch. Thanks!
What would it take to get it applied to a few earlier
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
Yeah, the big question is if we want to backport something like this at
all... Thoughts?
The issue never even came up before, so I'd vote to not take any risks
for it. How often do people mess up the protections on pg_hba.conf?
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 09:47:55AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
Yeah, the big question is if we want to backport something like this at
all... Thoughts?
The issue never even came up before, so I'd vote to not take any risks
for it. How often do
On Thursday 05 March 2009 18:04:42 Joshua Tolley wrote:
As an aside, is access() adequately portable, ok to use within the
backend, etc.? I just sort of took a shot in the dark.
Using access() is usually not a good idea. In this case it would be better to
check the return of the actual open()
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Thursday 05 March 2009 18:04:42 Joshua Tolley wrote:
As an aside, is access() adequately portable, ok to use within the
backend, etc.? I just sort of took a shot in the dark.
Using access() is usually not a good idea. In this case it would be better
to
check
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 08:19:05PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Thursday 05 March 2009 18:04:42 Joshua Tolley wrote:
As an aside, is access() adequately portable, ok to use within the
backend, etc.? I just sort of took a shot in the dark.
Using access() is
Selena Deckelmann wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Selena Deckelmann sel...@endpoint.com writes:
From the comment in hba.c, it appears that the desired behavior is to
have the system ignore the failure,
I'm not sure how you could possibly read that comment that way.
Right. Sorry, poor choice of
Joshua Tolley wrote:
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 09:43:55AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
So. I've updated the comment, and applied your patch. Thanks!
What would it take to get it applied to a few earlier versions as well?
I guess you maintaining your own fork? ;-)
Simply put, earlier
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 10:28:42AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Joshua Tolley wrote:
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 09:43:55AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
So. I've updated the comment, and applied your patch. Thanks!
What would it take to get it applied to a few earlier versions as well?
This is my first patch. I hope it's not stupid.
We ran into a little issue today where permission/ownership on
pg_hba.conf was accidentally changed to something that the postgres user
could not read. When a SIGHUP was issued, the postmaster quit. That was
kind of a bummer.
From the comment in
Selena Deckelmann sel...@endpoint.com writes:
From the comment in hba.c, it appears that the desired behavior is to
have the system ignore the failure,
I'm not sure how you could possibly read that comment that way.
It might be sane to distinguish initial load from reload, but I think
the
Tom Lane wrote:
Selena Deckelmann sel...@endpoint.com writes:
From the comment in hba.c, it appears that the desired behavior is to
have the system ignore the failure,
I'm not sure how you could possibly read that comment that way.
Right. Sorry, poor choice of words. I meant don't die on
12 matches
Mail list logo
