> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> >> I think we had some discussions about changing the way that shared
> >> memory keys are generated, which might make this a less critical issue.
> >> But until something's done about that, this patch looks awfully
> >> dangerous.
>
> > But do we yank it out for that reason? I don't think so.
>
> Do you want to put a bright red "THIS FEATURE MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR
> DATA" warning in the manual? I think it'd be rather irresponsible of
> us to ship the patch without such a warning, unless someone builds a
> replacement interlock capability (or gets rid of the need for the
> interlock).
>
Seeing that we went many releases with no lock, and people really have
to try to have the problem by specifying a non-standard socket file, I
don't feel terribly concerned.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
