Re: O_NOATIME

Tom Lane wrote:
> Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Isn't that usually, and more portably, handled in the filesystem
>>> mount options?
>
>> Yes to both. I could imagine that for small systems/workstations
>> you might have some files that want access time, and others that
>> wanted NOATIME -- it seems the new flag lets you choose on a
>> file-by-file bases.
>
> Personally, if I were an admin who wanted access times, I'd regard
> the existence of such a flag as a security hole.

I'm not sure I see that. I'd have thought since postgresql
already caches stuff in shared buffers, the atime of a postgresql
file isn't reliable anyway; and outside of postgresql O_NOATIME
doesn't seem to me to affect admins any worse the existence of utime().

OTOH, I'm not going to argue for the patch either. I think it'd
be fair to say adding a linuxism and only benefiting novice/casual
users isn't that exciting.