I wrote:
> I will go and commit this, without the #ifdefs and without the --single
> exclusion.
On closer inspection I realized that the switch parsing was still far too
risky, because it would treat "-C" in any word of the process command line
as a reason not to check for root. Quite aside from
"MauMau" writes:
> From: "Heikki Linnakangas"
>> Hmm, why do this only on Windows? If "postgres -C" is safe enough to run
>> as Administrator on Windows, why not allow running it as root on Unix as
>> well? Even if there's no particular need to allow it as root on Unix,
>> fewer #ifdefs is goo
From: "Heikki Linnakangas"
Hmm, why do this only on Windows? If "postgres -C" is safe enough to run
as Administrator on Windows, why not allow running it as root on Unix as
well? Even if there's no particular need to allow it as root on Unix,
fewer #ifdefs is good.
Yes, I limited the change
On 02/01/2014 12:28 PM, Christian Kruse wrote:
On 31/01/14 22:17, MauMau wrote:
Thanks for reviewing the patch. Fixed. I'll add this revised patch to the
CommitFest entry soon.
Looks fine for me. Set it to „waiting for commit.“
Hmm, why do this only on Windows? If "postgres -C" is safe eno
Hi,
On 31/01/14 22:17, MauMau wrote:
> Thanks for reviewing the patch. Fixed. I'll add this revised patch to the
> CommitFest entry soon.
Looks fine for me. Set it to „waiting for commit.“
Best regards,
--
Christian Kruse http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24
From: "Christian Kruse"
personally I really dislike constructs like you used:
Thanks for reviewing the patch. Fixed. I'll add this revised patch to the
CommitFest entry soon.
Regards
MauMau
config_dir_win_v2.patch
Description: Binary data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-
Hi,
personally I really dislike constructs like you used:
#ifdef WIN32
if (check_if_admin)
#endif
check_root(progname);
It is hard to read and may confuse editors. Can you rewrite it?
The rest looks fine to me.
Best regards,
--
Christian Kruse http://ww
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 6:02 PM, MauMau wrote:
> From: "Amit Kapila"
>
>> Today, I had again gone through all the discussion that happened at
>> that time related to this problem
>> and I found that later in discussion it was discussed something on
>> lines as your Approach-2,
>> please see the li
From: "Amit Kapila"
Today, I had again gone through all the discussion that happened at
that time related to this problem
and I found that later in discussion it was discussed something on
lines as your Approach-2,
please see the link
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/503a879c.6070...@dunslan
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:30 PM, MauMau wrote:
> From: "Amit Kapila"
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 7:57 PM, MauMau wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Approach-2 has been discussed previously to resolve it and it doesn't seem
>> to be
>> a good way to handle it. Please refer link:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/messag
From: "Amit Kapila"
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 7:57 PM, MauMau wrote:
* Approach 1
When postgres starts, it removes Administrator privileges from its own
process. But is this possible at all? Windows security API is complex
and
provides many functions. It seems difficult to understand them. I
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 7:57 PM, MauMau wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've found a bug and would like to fix it, but I cannot figure out how to do
> that well. Could you give me any advice? I encountered this on PG 9.2, but
> it will probably exist in later versions.
>
> [Problem]
> On Windows, a user with
Hello,
I've found a bug and would like to fix it, but I cannot figure out how to do
that well. Could you give me any advice? I encountered this on PG 9.2, but
it will probably exist in later versions.
[Problem]
On Windows, a user with Administrator privileges can start the database
server.
13 matches
Mail list logo
