From: | Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_basebackup ignores the existing data directory permissions |
Date: | 2019-02-14 07:34:07 |
Message-ID: | CAJrrPGdNFP_pe5yfUQdxEWEX5ocAGcVaeMr-OxNE=gA7E=a5Ww@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 3:04 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 06:42:36PM +1100, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> > This should back-patch till 11 where the group access is introduced.
> > Because of lack of complaints, I agree with you that there is no need of
> > further back-patch.
>
> I am confused by the link with group access.
Apologies to confuse you by linking it with group access. This patch doesn't
have an interaction with group access. From v11 onwards, PostgreSQL server
accepts two set of permissions for the data directory because of group
access.
we have an application that is used to create the data directory with
owner access (0700), but with initdb group permissions option, it
automatically
converts to (0750) by the initdb. But pg_basebackup doesn't change it when
it tries to do a backup from a group access server.
> The patch you are
> sending is compatible down to v11, but we could also do it further
> down by just using chmod with S_IRWXU on the target folder if it
> exists and is empty.
>
Yes, I agree with you that by changing chmod as you said fixes it in the
back-branches.
Regards,
Haribabu Kommi
Fujitsu Australia
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Higuchi, Daisuke | 2019-02-14 07:39:50 | [Bug Fix] ECPG: could not use some CREATE TABLE AS syntax |
Previous Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2019-02-14 07:32:44 | Re: replace_text optimization (StringInfo to varlena) |