> Peter,
>
> You may well be on the development team, but you are wrong for
> one very important reason. If the Postgresql executables are owned by
> root they execute with the priviledges of root. Thereby any local
> created extensions like database_size also execute with the priviledges
> of root. Wouldn't it be wonderful if some disgruntled person or a
> hacker wrote & installed a package that did an rm -fr /?? Install
> Postgres in it's own account where it's priviledges to destroy the
> server are restricted. Anything else is begging for trouble.
Actually this is not true at any level. In order for the file
to execute as root it must be setuid root, the ownership is irrelevant
at that point.
If what you said were true, then almost every binary on a Linux system
would execute as root.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
>
> Dick Goulet
> Senior Oracle DBA
> Oracle Certified 8i DBA
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Eisentraut [mailto:peter_e@gmx.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 7:01 PM
> To: Tomeh, Husam
> Cc: PgSQL ADMIN
> Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Installing PostgreSQL as "postgress" versus "root"
> Debate!
>
> Tomeh, Husam wrote:
>> I've seen book that prefer installing PostgreSQL as root and another
>> one recommends otherwise by first creating a postgres account and
>> then installing it as postgres. In the Oracle world, you don't use
>> root to install the software. What is the best practice as far as
>> PostgreSQL goes?
>
> The current recommendation, which is reflected in the installation
> instructions, is to install the software as root and to use the
> postgres user for the database files. The advice seen elsewhere in
> this thread to use the postgres user also for the software files is
> wrong.
>
>
--
Co-Founder
Command Prompt, Inc.
The wheel's spinning but the hamster's dead