Re: Re: [PATCHES] PostgreSQL virtual hosting support

> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)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(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026