Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1qxw8i-004V8S-WB for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 31 Oct 2023 21:19:09 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1qxw8h-004SMk-Eo for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 31 Oct 2023 21:19:07 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1qxw8h-004SMb-3n for pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 31 Oct 2023 21:19:07 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1qxw8e-003LRE-I8 for pgsql-admin@postgresql.org; Tue, 31 Oct 2023 21:19:05 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 39VLJ3ef2637793; Tue, 31 Oct 2023 17:19:03 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: richard coleman cc: pgsql-admin Subject: Re: COPY FROM appears broken in PostgreSQL 15 In-reply-to: <2637137.1698786704@sss.pgh.pa.us> References: <2637137.1698786704@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane message dated "Tue, 31 Oct 2023 17:11:44 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2637791.1698787143.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2023 17:19:03 -0400 Message-ID: <2637792.1698787143@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk I wrote: > richard coleman writes: >> I have checked and the postgres user can read/write to the file just fine. > Check that again. Check lookup permission on all the directories in > the path, too. BTW, if you're on a selinux-enabled system (most Red-Hat-based distros), you need to check file contexts too. Under selinux, it's not uncommon for a daemon process to have fewer privileges than the "same" user running an interactive session. regards, tom lane