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
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 ... |