Re: 9.2RC1 wraps this Thursday ...

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 9.2RC1 wraps this Thursday ...
Date: 2012-08-21 17:01:09
Message-ID: 3939.1345568469@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> writes:
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)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 of the overall problem. Below is text from
> previous mail discussion due to which new handling is introduced:
> "
>> I note that "postgres -C data_directory" will refuse to run on the
>> command line because I've got admin privileges in Windows, and that
>> pg_ctl normally starts postgres.exe using CreateRestrictedProcess.
>> But it does not do so for the popen call in adjust_data_dir.

Ah, okay, so that is a new bug in 9.2. I've adjusted the description
on the open-items page to reflect what still needs to be fixed.

>> isn't there a way to actually test if we're in a restricted process?

> Do you mean to say that it should check if pg_ctl runs as an administrative
> user then do the re-fork in restricted mode.

Something like that. The proposed patch depends on there not being a
conflicting environment variable, which seems rather fragile to me.
Can't we test the same condition that postgres.exe itself would test?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2012-08-21 17:03:16 Re: Slow tab completion w/ lots of tables
Previous Message Tom Lane 2012-08-21 16:51:25 Re: 9.2RC1 wraps this Thursday ...