From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Patches (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Hackers (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] heads up -- subtle change of behavior of new initdb |
Date: | 2003-11-14 06:57:36 |
Message-ID: | 3FB47CE0.8010901@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
darnit!
patch attached.
(Thinks - do we need to worry about suid sgid and sticky bits on data dir?)
andrew
Tom Lane wrote:
>Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
>
>
>>I just noticed tonight that the new initdb introduced a subtle change of
>>behavior. I use a shell script to automate the process of
>>- rm old data directory
>>- mkdir new data directory
>>- initdb
>>- load from pgdumpall
>>Now, that second step is not needed, but as of today it produces an
>>installation that won't start due to improper permissions on data
>>
>>
>
>That's a bug --- evidently the "fix permissions" path of control is
>wrong; can you take a look?
>
>
>
>
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
initdb.c.permpatch | text/plain | 623 bytes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rajesh Kumar Mallah | 2003-11-14 07:21:38 | Help with count(*) |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2003-11-14 06:44:58 | Re: heads up -- subtle change of behavior of new initdb |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2003-11-14 12:27:51 | Re: heads up -- subtle change of behavior of new initdb |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2003-11-14 06:44:58 | Re: heads up -- subtle change of behavior of new initdb |