On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 4:33 PM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 06:51:37PM +1100, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > > IMO, this update is just a recommendation to the user, and sometimes it > is > > still possible that there may be strict permissions for the log file > > even the data directory is allowed for the group access. So I feel > > it is still better to update the permissions of the current_logfiles > > to the database files permissions than log file permissions. > > I was just reading again this thread, and the suggestions that > current_logfiles is itself not a log file is also a sensible > position. I was just looking at the patch that you sent at the top of > the thread here: > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cajrrpgceotf1p7awoeqyd3pqr-0xkqg_herv98djbamj+na...@mail.gmail.com > Thanks for the review. > And actually it seems to me that you have a race condition in that > stuff. I think that you had better use umask(), then fopen, and then > once again umask() to put back the previous permissions, removing the > extra chmod() call. > Changed the patch to use umask() instead of chmod() according to your suggestion. updated patch attached. Regards, Haribabu Kommi Fujitsu Australia
0001-Adjust-current_logfiles-file-permissions_v2.patch
Description: Binary data
