Re: pg_upgrade improvements - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: pg_upgrade improvements
Date
Msg-id 3927.1333640359@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_upgrade improvements  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: pg_upgrade improvements  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>> The point is to avoid the risk that someone else could connect to the
>> database at the same time you're doing work on it.

> I got that. I just fail to see what the advantage of using two pipes instead 
> of one socket as every other plain connection would be?

Yeah, that would be a small pain in the neck, but it eliminates a huge
pile of practical difficulties, like your blithe assumption that you can
find a "private directory" somewhere (wrong) or disallow access to other
people (also wrong, if they are using the same account as you).

The short answer is that sockets and named pipes are *meant* to be
publicly accessible.  Guaranteeing that they are not is a difficult
task full of possibilities for security holes.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade improvements
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Patch: add timing of buffer I/O requests