From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Regression tests versus the buildfarm environment |
Date: | 2010-08-11 15:55:52 |
Message-ID: | 6843.1281542152@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:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>> Why not just compare pg_backend_pid() with postmaster.pid?
> See the prior discussion in the archives. We started with that and
> found problems, to which Tom suggested a random number as the best
> solution.
I think Peter's idea is a bit different though. The previous concern
was about what information would be okay to expose in a pg_ping response
packet, which presumably would be available to anybody who could open a
connection to the postmaster port. What he's suggesting is to
crosscheck against data that is available after a successful login.
That eliminates the security complaint.
It strikes me we could do something without adding a postmaster-PID
SQL function, too. What about doing SHOW DATA_DIRECTORY and comparing
that to what pg_regress expects?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2010-08-11 16:23:49 | Re: string_to_array with an empty input string |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-08-11 15:53:37 | Re: Regression tests versus the buildfarm environment |