From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Rob Sargent <robjsargent@gmail.com>
cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>,
        Pg Docs <pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: ssl file permission
In-reply-to: <AA9B61E4-0611-45A7-A5D0-460E2E0C9887@gmail.com>
References: 
 <CABUevEw71x6hJa-GMP6api1C9pZre4XgLn2cUX9oZcZvniRWPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <AA9B61E4-0611-45A7-A5D0-460E2E0C9887@gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Rob Sargent <robjsargent@gmail.com>
	message dated "Sat, 26 Sep 2020 09:54:59 -0600"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <5921.1601145530.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 14:38:50 -0400
Message-ID: <5922.1601145530@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Rob Sargent <robjsargent@gmail.com> writes:
> Sorry. Execute permission for owner may have been on prior to chmod og-r=
wx .  I thought that might be a problem and 600 eliminates that

It seems highly unlikely that openssl would write the file with x
permission turned on.  Even if it did, there's no particular
reason for us to insist on changing it.

>> That said, it might be a good idea to be consistent since we seem to us=
e a mix of different styles of chmod.

There is that.  But I think the "og-rwx" style is more recommendable,
if we're going to try to standardize.

			regards, tom lane