Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users
Date
Msg-id 1308340988.16852.8.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users
List pgsql-hackers
On ons, 2011-06-15 at 17:50 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> On non-Windows servers you could get this even safer by disabling the
> >> TCP/IP socket altogether, and placing the Unix-domain socket in a
> >> private temporary directory.  The "port" wouldn't actually matter then.
>
> > Yes, it would be nice to just create the socket in the current
> > directory.  The fact it doesn't work on Windows would cause our docs to
> > have to differ for Windows, which seems unfortunate.
>
> It still wouldn't be bulletproof against someone running as the postgres
> user, so probably not worth the trouble.

But the postgres user would normally be the DBA itself, so it'd be his
own fault.  I don't see how you can easily make any process safe from
interference by the same user account.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: possible connection leak in dblink?