| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: windows / initdb oddness |
| Date: | 2006-02-22 17:12:20 |
| Message-ID: | 43FC9B74.8060309@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
>Is there any reason to worry about an accidental environment conflict?
>If someone mistakenly did "export PG_RESTRICT_EXEC=1", it looks to me
>like this would cause the re-exec bit to be skipped, but I suppose the
>worst possible consequence is that the postmaster would refuse to start.
>Is there anything I don't see? (Of course, the magic argument method
>can be broken manually in just the same way...)
>
>
>
>
Yes. The effect would be that we just do exactly what we do today
anyway. We could make the value some more obscure token, but I don't
see much point.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2006-02-22 17:14:40 | Re: pg_config, pg_service.conf, postgresql.conf .... |
| Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2006-02-22 17:11:46 | Re: Pgfoundry and gborg: shut one down |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Kinberg | 2006-02-22 18:27:15 | [PATCH] Prompt for password on Windows platforms |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-02-22 16:54:40 | Re: windows / initdb oddness |