From: Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Subject: Re: O_NOATIME
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 14:31:50 -0700
Message-ID: <44D26B46.9090005@cheapcomplexdevices.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <26312.1154639188@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <eatmlt$qd7$1@news.hub.org>
<25468.1154637504@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<44D2620C.3070506@cheapcomplexdevices.com>
<26312.1154639188@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Tom Lane wrote:
> Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Isn't that usually, and more portably, handled in the filesystem
>>> mount options?
>
>> Yes to both. I could imagine that for small systems/workstations
>> you might have some files that want access time, and others that
>> wanted NOATIME -- it seems the new flag lets you choose on a
>> file-by-file bases.
>
> Personally, if I were an admin who wanted access times, I'd regard
> the existence of such a flag as a security hole.
I'm not sure I see that. I'd have thought since postgresql
already caches stuff in shared buffers, the atime of a postgresql
file isn't reliable anyway; and outside of postgresql O_NOATIME
doesn't seem to me to affect admins any worse the existence of utime().
OTOH, I'm not going to argue for the patch either. I think it'd
be fair to say adding a linuxism and only benefiting novice/casual
users isn't that exciting.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
Subject: Re: O_NOATIME
In-Reply-To: <44D26B46.9090005@cheapcomplexdevices.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox