Re: Regression tests versus the buildfarm environment

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Regression tests versus the buildfarm environment
Date: 2010-08-11 14:17:25
Message-ID: 4697.1281536245@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> BTW, I don't know why anyone would think that "a random number"
>> would offer any advantage here. I'd use the postmaster PID, which
>> is guaranteed to be unique across the space that you're worried
>> about.

> Well, in the post I cited, it was you who argued that the PID was a
> bad choice, suggested a random number, and stated "That would have a
> substantially lower collision probability than PID, if the number
> generation process were well designed; and it wouldn't risk exposing
> anything sensitive in the ping response."

Hmm. I don't remember why we'd think that the postmaster PID was
sensitive information ... but if you take that as true, then yeah
it couldn't be included in a pg_ping response.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alanoly Andrews 2010-08-11 14:20:31 Re: [HACKERS] postgres 9.0 crash when bringing up hot standby
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-08-11 14:15:21 Re: Regression tests versus the buildfarm environment