Re: pgsql: Revert "Secure Unix-domain sockets of "make check" temporary clu

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Revert "Secure Unix-domain sockets of "make check" temporary clu
Date: 2014-03-29 21:39:11
Message-ID: 9484.1396129151@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 03/29/2014 04:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> In this particular example the path is only about 7 characters too long,
>> but I suppose trying to shave off a few characters isn't really going
>> to be a robust solution.

> Since you have one of the offending buildfarm machines (dromedary) why
> not try this: in the build_env section of the config file, add
> PG_REGRESS_SOCK_DIR => "/Users/buildfarm/bf-data/$branch/",

I'm happy to tweak the config, but given that Noah reverted the patch,
what is it that we're testing exactly?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2014-03-29 22:10:57 Re: pgsql: Revert "Secure Unix-domain sockets of "make check" temporary clu
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-03-29 21:34:14 pgsql: Fix dumping of a materialized view that depends on a table's pri

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-03-29 21:44:14 Re: [RFC] What should we do for reliable WAL archiving?
Previous Message Jeff Janes 2014-03-29 21:38:03 Re: [RFC] What should we do for reliable WAL archiving?