Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> What's your point? The script fails anyway if that bit doesn't work.
>
> > Is 'id' better than what we have now if 'id' isn't widely supported?
>
> I'm repeating myself, but: what's your point? 'id' exists on Linux,
> and the script fails (in the worst possible way, ie, might remove
> inappropriate shmem segments) on all other platforms if it's unable
> to detect the correct EffectiveUser. I would argue that checking for a
> numeric, nonzero EffectiveUser is going to make it safer not less so.
If it can be done more reliably than what we do not. We support much
more than Linix, and I have not seen anyway say 'id' is available on all
platforms. We can try 'id' if it exists and fall back if it doesn't.
-- Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us SRA OSS, Inc. http://www.sraoss.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +