Re: [GENERAL] Unable to connect to Postgresql

On 04/07/2017 05:03 PM, John Iliffe wrote:

Please reply to list also
Ccing list.
> On Friday 07 April 2017 18:58:15 you wrote:
>> On 04/07/2017 02:38 PM, John Iliffe wrote:
>>> When I attempt to run any web application php cannot open a database
>>> because of failure to connect.  (Please disregard the programme name,
>>> it is running in mod_php, not as an fcgi module).  The (php) message
>>> is:
>>>
>>> --------------------------
>>> [Fri Apr 07 17:03:28.597101 2017] [php7:warn] [pid 1797:tid
>>> 140599445419776] [client 192.168.1.10:45127] PHP Warning:
>>> pg_connect(): Unable to connect to PostgreSQL server: could not
>>> connect to server: No such file or directory\n\tIs the server running
>>> locally and
>>> accepting\n\tconnections on Unix domain socket
>>> "/tmp/.s.PGSQL.5432"? in /httpd/iliffe/testfcgi.php on line
>>> 121 ----------------------------
>>>
>>> The proper socket does exist:
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------
>>> ls -al /tmp | grep PGSQL
>>> srwxrwxrwx.  1 postgres postgres    0 Apr  7 16:53 .s.PGSQL.5432
>>> -rw-------.  1 postgres postgres   49 Apr  7 16:53 .s.PGSQL.5432.lock
>>>
>>> ss -a | grep 5432
>>> u_str  LISTEN     0      128    /tmp/.s.PGSQL.5432 30480
>>>  * 0 -------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Running on Fedora 25 with SELinux in PERMISSIVE mode.  The audit log
>>> shows no hits on Postgresql.
>>>
>>> Postgresql version number is 9.6.2
>>>
>>> As expected, the postgresql log shows nothing since the last start up.
>>
>> Meant to add to previous post:
>>
>> What happens if you try to connect to the database using psql?
>
> Works just as I would expect.
>
> In fact, I was able to load the one of the databases from the pg_dump
> backup using pg_restore without any problems either, and I checked the
> results by running some in-stream transactions in psql.  Everything went
> fine at that point, until I tried to start Apache and couldn't connect.

To be precise PHP could not connect, correct?

>
> My going in position was/still is, that this is a SELinux security problem
> but I am finding SELinux to be the most opaque and badly documented software
> that I have ever had to deal with, which is why it is running in permissive
> mode at the moment.

Well what I know about SELinux would fit in the navel of a flea(tip of
the hat to David Niven), so I can not be of much help there. The reason
I am returned this thread to the list, there are folks that do
understand it.

>
> Regards,
>
> John
>>
>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>
>>> John
>>> =====================================


--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com