Tom Lane wrote: > "Robert Haas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> The user running initdb (or the postmaster) needs >>> SeCreateGlobalPrivilege - which is something we cannot really start >>> telling people they must have. My view is that we revert the change >>> (well, replace it with something that looks less like a broken attempt >>> to use the global namespace) and leave it at that. iirc, the use of >>> the global namespace is there to ensure things work as they should >>> under a non-console terminal services session - which is pretty rare >>> and can usually be avoided. > >> I'm not so sure that non-console terminal service sessions should be >> categorized as "pretty rare". > > Would there be any value in trying a global name first and falling back > to non-global if that fails?
Hmm. We could fail on the specific error that we get in this case, perhaps. I think it should be "a required privilege is not held by the client", which shouldn't occur otherwise. If it's just "access denied", that could equally well be caused by a running postmaster in a different session under a different useraccount... //Magnus -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
