| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
| 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 |