Re: Bypassing Directory Ownership Check in PostgreSQL 16.6 with Secure z/OS NFS (AT-TLS) - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Amol Inamdar
Subject Re: Bypassing Directory Ownership Check in PostgreSQL 16.6 with Secure z/OS NFS (AT-TLS)
Date
Msg-id CAGOe9RirtoXtMJhejo4_V+Si83+c4gfM_E-DH9WqaEBJ9SnfiA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Bypassing Directory Ownership Check in PostgreSQL 16.6 with Secure z/OS NFS (AT-TLS)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-general
Thanks Tom and Laurenz for the explanation. 
Let me try out a few things and get back to you if needed.

Thanks,
Amol

On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 7:37 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> writes:
> It is not a good idea to have a mount point be the data directory.

^^^ This. ^^^

That is primarily for safety reasons: if for some reason the
filesystem gets dismounted, or hasn't come on-line yet during
a reboot, you do not want Postgres to be able to write on the
underlying mount-point directory.  There is a sobering tale
in this old thread:

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/41BFAB7C.5040108%40joeconway.com

Now it didn't help any that they were using a start script that
would automatically run initdb if it didn't see a data directory
where expected.  But even without that, you are in for a world of
hurt if the mount drops while the server is running and the server
has any ability to write on the underlying storage; it will think
whatever it was able to write is safely down on disk.  To prevent
that, the server must not have write permissions on the mount
point, which dictates making a separate data directory (with
different ownership/permissions) just below the mount.

Do not bypass that ownership/permissions check.  It is there
for very good reasons.

                        regards, tom lane


--
-regards
Amol

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Amol Inamdar
Date:
Subject: Re: Bypassing Directory Ownership Check in PostgreSQL 16.6 with Secure z/OS NFS (AT-TLS)
Next
From: Rich Shepard
Date:
Subject: Re: Syntax error needs explanation [RESOLVED]