Re: Make SIGHUP less painful if pg_hba.conf is not readable

From: Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Selena Deckelmann <selena(at)endpoint(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Make SIGHUP less painful if pg_hba.conf is not readable
Date: 2009-03-05 16:04:42
Message-ID: 20090305160437.GO25872@eddie
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 09:47:55AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> > Yeah, the big question is if we want to backport something like this at
> > all... Thoughts?
>
> The issue never even came up before, so I'd vote to not take any risks
> for it. How often do people mess up the protections on pg_hba.conf?

Apparently I do :) Whether I'm the only one or not, I can't say. I
realize this wouldn't protect anyone from, say, syntax errors, which
certainly are more common.

As an aside, is access() adequately portable, ok to use within the
backend, etc.? I just sort of took a shot in the dark.

- Josh / eggyknap

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message ohp 2009-03-05 16:15:14 Re: pg_restore -m failing
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-03-05 15:54:33 Re: [BUG] Column-level privileges on inherited tables