On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:26:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:17:49PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I have no objection to doing that, so long as you are actually doing it > >> correctly. This example shows that each jail must have its own SysV > >> semaphore key space, else information leaks anyway. > > > By default SysV shared memory is disallowed in jails. > > Hm, the present problem seems to be about semaphores not shared memory
Sorry, I meant IPC. > ... although I'd not be surprised to find that there's a similar issue > around shared memory. Anyway, if FBSD's position is that they are > uninterested in supporting SysV IPC in connection with jails, then I > think the Postgres project position has to be that we are uninterested > in supporting Postgres inside FBSD jails. No-one is taking a position of being "uninterested", so please don't be hasty to reciprocate. Kris
pgpFHpzpEVx0Q.pgp
Description: PGP signature
