Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [BUGS] postgresql 8.0b1 Win32 observations

From: Justin Wyer <justin(at)isogo(dot)co(dot)za>
To: Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>,Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>,postgresql <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [BUGS] postgresql 8.0b1 Win32 observations
Date: 2004-08-23 08:35:24
Message-ID: 4129AC4C.9010200@isogo.co.za (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers-win32
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  <title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Magnus Hagander wrote:<br>
<blockquote
 cite="mid6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE34C055(at)algol(dot)sollentuna(dot)se"
 type="cite">
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">For one, there is no security on the files. We take 
      </pre>
    </blockquote>
    <pre wrap="">explicit steps to 
    </pre>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">ensure the security of the files against the pg service account on 
NTFS (deny-write permissions on everything except the PGDATA 
directory). This step cannot be done on FAT, obviously.
      </pre>
    </blockquote>
    <pre wrap="">No, but anyone running on FAT already knows that. Our concern 
is making sure that PostgreSQL cannot be used as an attack 
route, and ensuring that data is stored reliably. Anything 
beyond that is starting to become intrusive imo.
    </pre>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->
In my experience, the first sentence of this is not always true. The
rest is, though. Since you're clearly pretty convinced we shouldn't put
up that warning, I'll defer on this :-)

  </pre>
</blockquote>
I agree, I must say the only people still running FAT on NT systems
these days are those who do so by choice. I know the problems one can
run into with FAT and I would never ever run it on a production system
(if I ever ran a production windows box). As for the need of a warning,
well that would be for the benefit of the php/mysql club who are trying
something new, however I doubt any of them would be running FAT, since
you cannot even format your partitions as FAT (unless they were already
so) in windows XP install. A simple warning is no problem at all in my
eyes. All I (and maybe a few others?) want to be able to do is run it
on FAT, I am even happy install on another machine and just copying all
the stuff over and re initdb'ing :D<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
Justin<br>
</body>
</html>


Attachment: unknown_filename
Description: text/html (2.1 KB)

In response to

pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2004-08-23 17:49:21
Subject: Re: REPOST: InitDB Failure on install
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2004-08-23 08:27:54
Subject: Re: [BUGS] postgresql 8.0b1 Win32 observations

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group