Re: initdb recommendations
"Jonathan S. Katz" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.db.postgresql.devel.documentation |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 4/5/19 4:58 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 2019-04-05 18:11, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: >> (There could be an additional discussion about whether or not we want to >> change the default behavior for initdb, but I would suggest that a safe >> starting point would be to ensure we call this out) > > I think we should just change the defaults. There is a risk of warning > fatigue. initdb does warn about this, so anyone who cared could have > gotten the information. It might actually be a combination of both updating the defaults and modifying the documentation. If we introduce better defaults, we'll need an explanation of what the defaults are and why they are as such. If we don't, we certainly need to warn the user what's happening. The way it's currently written, it's very easy to miss. I also don't see how it's warning fatigue when it's both a) a feature that could put your system into a vulnerable state if you're not careful and b) the only warning on that page. Jonathan
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 833 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEE+oS2la8r95ogZD/x8QSccp8cZScFAlynxmAACgkQ8QSccp8c ZSegTRAAqqGVkHS5thVKmvPSaFByfB/sNpcAL7VjhKLRCGJmx9VUcK2rSPvdKU+0 HI1DEyR5nxRkeqw6kKOyIlmX8isbvn2ynO+D+UviK1npx5g4RyXbdudEH5ric+Lk p9tDh2UxzKqgmeBKMgdr1ZMkFSyKTBNXDVu7sQu6mjPoYt8/RyrU99LiZ6hG3/6R SWpSDHD+tLj80aEWsMMBke6LH900tcwTrMDTiMGZMNOUX5v20zNcMkNeh8VSNCb3 5mH/Fj8g9+DGhkba3mk94txUPpQsdZom7RXx/lrb1B00IBXOJgMTWNpCRwr32xuv ohZCJi6X2pI8jLWD7uu3aTiW0cenzTh5YvJPYTm2K2PNpGSMBvA0GHv85au25PcF VgBxJ485gPoFiutigVtvY67s9Tl9SAf4zoOSbdmFECWm/WSZISV2UfdVgho+Kqva 8Y1qNIgmvKYZEuJKJ2JEa6EZzSDvcOOmUqZ9fVISp5Sb93eV+j1XvAWjuvCuG7aJ 7oGMmP/zPC1IwACPaR2BRTYFzSlQIfjnnZOLdTk2pDHYjl6s8DxrAQmY5tukH8ez hq7jzGfg6CXt009mpwMMbUZHeMMQctwp5UNdPGyvF8Kv7NdT3qAjyKfA5IROt1hJ SosoC/Lhh+od/6tVB55wYUhlLj/15P55kduxH1u9GAtSfUafRDc= =aSQd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----