On Wed, December 1, 2010 16:54, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Whatever was the cause of the ssl problem I also encountered a
>> surprising number of SELinux violations. The following details
>> the
>> SELinux settings that I ultimately had to apply as a local module.
>> This took a considerable period of time as each had to be
>> triggered
>> in turn in order that the error be identified.
>
>> #============= postgresql_t ==============
>> allow postgresql_t var_lib_t:dir rmdir;
>> allow postgresql_t var_lib_t:file { write getattr link read unlink
>> append };
>
>> Is this to be expected?
>
> AFAIK, the Red Hat RPMs work out-of-the-box with SELinux; I'm a bit
> surprised to hear that the PGDG ones don't, because last I heard
> they use the same file layout. What the above sounds like to me is
> that
> the data directory tree wasn't correctly labeled as postgresql_db_t.
> Maybe a restorecon would have helped?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
I tried a restorecon as suggested by sealert at the first error. It
had no effect insofar as I could determine.
--
*** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel ***
James B. Byrne mailto:ByrneJB@Harte-Lyne.ca
Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca
9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241
Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757
Canada L8E 3C3