On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 09:36:40PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Applied, and pushed this way.
OK, thanks for the commit.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 9:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
> > Seems simple enough and the right hting to do, but I wonder if we should
> > really backpatch it. Yes, the behaviour is not great now, but there is
> also
> > a non-zero risk
Magnus Hagander writes:
> Seems simple enough and the right hting to do, but I wonder if we should
> really backpatch it. Yes, the behaviour is not great now, but there is also
> a non-zero risk of breaking peoples automated failover scripts of we
> backpatch it, isn't it?
On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Seems simple enough and the right hting to do, but I wonder if we should
> really backpatch it. Yes, the behaviour is not great now, but there is also
> a non-zero risk of breaking peoples automated failover scripts of
On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 7:11 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I was just going through pg_rewind's code, and noticed the following
> pearl:
> /*
> * Don't allow pg_rewind to be run as root, to avoid overwriting the
> * ownership of files in the data
Hi all,
I was just going through pg_rewind's code, and noticed the following
pearl:
/*
* Don't allow pg_rewind to be run as root, to avoid overwriting the
* ownership of files in the data directory. We need only check for root
* -- any other user won't have sufficient