Goulet, Dick wrote:
>Whatever, I'll keep root only for absolutely restricted use & install
>under a separate user account. Works just fine & it makes the auditors
>& sysadmin feel better.
>
>
I don't argue the point of using root. I agree with you there.
Just the point that if it is owned by root it executes as root.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
>Dick Goulet
>Senior Oracle DBA
>Oracle Certified 8i DBA
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Stephan Szabo [mailto:sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 11:14 PM
>To: Goulet, Dick
>Cc: Peter Eisentraut; Tomeh, Husam; PgSQL ADMIN
>Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Installing PostgreSQL as "postgress" versus "root"
>Debate!
>
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Goulet, Dick wrote:
>
>
>
>> You may well be on the development team, but you are wrong for
>>one very important reason. If the Postgresql executables are owned by
>>root they execute with the priviledges of root. Thereby any local
>>
>>
>
>Not on any reasonable system unless installed setuid at which point I
>don't think they'd run since I think the don't run as root code would
>prevent it.
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
>
--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
