On 08/26/2012 03:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
BTW, one idea that occurs to me is to bypass the problem by skipping
the server's no-root-privileges check when the postmaster is given the
-C switch. (This shouldn't pose a security hazard, since reading the
config files is something a root-privileged
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> I had a brief talk with Magnus the other day, and I have just spent more
> time looking over this. This is a fairly narrow failure case, with a not
> so narrow proposed solution. Making pg_ctl re-exec itself whenever we
> see that we're running as an admin user is a ver
On 08/24/2012 10:10 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander writes:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
TBH I'd rather stick with the less invasive approach of the original patch
at this stage, and see about refactoring for 9.3.
+1.
While I haven't looked at the code specific
Magnus Hagander writes:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> TBH I'd rather stick with the less invasive approach of the original patch
>> at this stage, and see about refactoring for 9.3.
> +1.
> While I haven't looked at the code specifically, these areas can be
> quite
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 08/23/2012 02:44 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 08/23/2012 01:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>
>>> Andrew Dunstan writes:
On 08/23/2012 12:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Anybody who wants to fix it is surely welcome to,
On 08/23/2012 02:44 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 08/23/2012 01:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan writes:
On 08/23/2012 12:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Anybody who wants to fix it is surely welcome to, but I'm not going
to consider this item as a reason to postpone RC1.
I'm not sure what you
On 08/23/2012 01:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan writes:
On 08/23/2012 12:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Anybody who wants to fix it is surely welcome to, but I'm not going
to consider this item as a reason to postpone RC1.
I'm not sure what you want done. I can test Amit's patch in a couple o
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 08/23/2012 12:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Anybody who wants to fix it is surely welcome to, but I'm not going
>> to consider this item as a reason to postpone RC1.
> I'm not sure what you want done. I can test Amit's patch in a couple of
> Windows environments (say XP+m
On 08/23/2012 12:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
... I really can't take responsibility for any of this since
I don't have a Windows development environment. One of the Windows-
hacking committers needs to pick this issue up. Anyone?
[ crickets ]
I guess everybody who might take an interest
From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us]
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 10:10 AM
I wrote:
>> ... I really can't take responsibility for any of this since
>> I don't have a Windows development environment. One of the Windows-
>> hacking committers needs to pick this issue up. Anyone?
> [ cric
On 08/23/2012 12:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
... I really can't take responsibility for any of this since
I don't have a Windows development environment. One of the Windows-
hacking committers needs to pick this issue up. Anyone?
[ crickets ]
I guess everybody who might take an interest
I wrote:
> ... I really can't take responsibility for any of this since
> I don't have a Windows development environment. One of the Windows-
> hacking committers needs to pick this issue up. Anyone?
[ crickets ]
I guess everybody who might take an interest in this is out sailing...
After furt
Amit kapila writes:
>> Can't we test the same condition that postgres.exe itself would test?
>To implement the postgre.exe way we have following options:
>1. Duplicate the function pgwin32_is_admin and related function to pg_ctl,
> as currently it is not exposed.
>2. Make that v
From: Tom Lane [t...@sss.pgh.pa.us]
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 10:31 PM
Amit Kapila writes:
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
>> * pg_ctl crashes on Win32 when neither PGDATA nor -D specified
>>> isn't there a way to actually test if we're in a restricted p
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> * Checkpointer process split broke fsync'ing
>> ** bug is fixed, but now we had better recheck earlier performance claims
>>
>> Is anyone actually going to do any performance testing on this?
> I am unlikely to have time
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I can work on it if you're still swamped. I think it is probably
>>> fixable by treating the view options as attached to the _RETURN rule
>>> instead of the base table
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, that sounds about right. You want to do it, or shall I?
> If you don't mind dealing with it, that's great. If you'd prefer that
> I cleaned up my own mess, I'll take care of it.
I can do it. I have nothing on my
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I can work on it if you're still swamped. I think it is probably
>> fixable by treating the view options as attached to the _RETURN rule
>> instead of the base table in pg_dump's objects. (There is an ALTER VIEW
>> comma
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> * View options are problematic for pg_dump
>>>
>>> I had hoped those who created this problem were going to fix it, but
>>> given the lack of response I guess I'll hav
From: Tom Lane [t...@sss.pgh.pa.us]
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 10:31 PM
Amit Kapila writes:
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
>>> * pg_ctl crashes on Win32 when neither PGDATA nor -D specified
>>> I'm not sure that this qualifies as a release blocker either -
Amit Kapila writes:
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
>> * pg_ctl crashes on Win32 when neither PGDATA nor -D specified
>> I'm not sure that this qualifies as a release blocker either --- isn't
>> it a plain-vanilla pre-existing bug?
> This is to handle one part
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar ago 21 10:47:41 -0400 2012:
>> * pg_ctl crashes on Win32 when neither PGDATA nor -D specified
>>
>> I'm not sure that this qualifies as a release blocker either --- isn't
>> it a plain-vanilla pre-existing bug? And what does the pr
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> * View options are problematic for pg_dump
>>
>> I had hoped those who created this problem were going to fix it, but
>> given the lack of response I guess I'll have to.
> This is my fault, but my hackers inbox got flood
From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
> * pg_ctl crashes on Win32 when neither PGDATA nor -D specified
> I'm not sure that this qualifies as a release blocker either --- isn't
> it a plain-vanilla pre-existing bug? And what does
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> ... or at least, that's what the schedule says. I don't think we can
> honestly produce a "release candidate" when there are still open issues
> listed as blockers at
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.2_Open_Items
> We need to eithe
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar ago 21 10:47:41 -0400 2012:
> * pg_ctl crashes on Win32 when neither PGDATA nor -D specified
>
> I'm not sure that this qualifies as a release blocker either --- isn't
> it a plain-vanilla pre-existing bug? And what does the proposed patch
> have to do wit
26 matches
Mail list logo
