From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
Cc: | <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: stderr & win32 admin check |
Date: | 2004-06-15 14:10:36 |
Message-ID: | E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E4A989@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> Sent: 15 June 2004 14:58
> To: Magnus Hagander
> Cc: Dave Page; pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [PATCHES] stderr & win32 admin check
>
> "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> writes:
> >> "Can't run Postgres securely" would be a
> more-than-sufficient reason
> >> not to support NT4, IMHO.
>
> > It could still be run on NT4 under the following conditions:
> > 1) Running as a service
> > 2) Running if the user logged in is not an administrator.
>
> Well, isn't "running as a service" sufficient? I thought
> that was the only interesting case for non-hackers anyway.
>
> As long as you get an error message that's reasonably clear
> about what you can do instead, this hardly seems like a showstopper...
Well, that's kinda the point. If you are a hacker who has local admin
privs (not exactly unusual on Windows networks - in some cases Power
User group membership is required to run legacy software), you *cannot*
run PostgreSQL except as a service, thus potentially making it a show
stopper for those users.
Personally I don't care as I use XP/2K3 anyway, but having been told my
autovacuum service code needed to support NT4....
Regards, Dave
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2004-06-15 15:06:03 | Re: stderr & win32 admin check |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-06-15 13:58:08 | Re: stderr & win32 admin check |