Horton

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Adam Brightwell <adam.brightwell@crunchydata.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-03-13T17:28:17Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> writes:
> On 3/12/18 3:28 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> In pg_rewind and pg_resetwal, isn't that also a portion which is not
>> necessary without the group access feature?

> These seem like a good idea to me with or without patch 03.  Some of our
> front-end tools (initdb, pg_upgrade) were setting umask and others
> weren't.  I think it's more consistent (and safer) if they all do, at
> least if they are writing into PGDATA.

+1 ... see a926eb84e for an example of how easy it is to screw up if
the process's overall umask is permissive.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Allow group access on PGDATA

  2. Refactor dir/file permissions

  3. Revert "Add basic TAP test setup for pg_upgrade"

  4. Add basic TAP test setup for pg_upgrade