On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 04:55:23PM +0530, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:01 AM, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote: > > I'm thinking that both the GUC check and the configure one should > > restrict it to [1024..65535]. > > Doesn't sound like a good idea to me. If somebody has a reason they > want to do that, they shouldn't have to hack the source code and > recompile to make it work.
I'm not sure I understand a use case here. On *n*x, we already disallow running as root pretty aggressively, using the "have to hack the source code and recompile" level of effort you aptly described. This is just cleanup work on that project, as I see it. What am I missing? Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
