On Sunday, September 09, 2012 8:46 PM Tom Lane wrote: Amit kapila <amit.kap...@huawei.com> writes: >> 1. does this follow the behavior that admin users will not be allowed to invoke postgres child process?
> That's an interesting question. I'm not sure if we'd want to disable > the no-root check on the Unix side, but it might make sense to. But > this has no bearing on what libpq does, does it? No, it has no bearing with what libpq does. Its only related to postgres invocation, because as soon as postgres get invoked, it first checks about root. If we want the root check can be avoided easily by checking argv. >> 2. to find standalone_backend incase user didn't input, do we need mechanism similar to getInstallationPaths()? > No. There is no reason at all for libpq to think it is part of a > postgres-supplied program, so it can't use any relative-path tricks, > even if it had the program's argv which it does not. Either the > compiled-in path works, or the user has to give one. > (But having said that, if Windows provides a way for a DLL to find > out its own filesystem location, maybe relative path from there would > work.) At first, I shall go ahead with the current way (Either the compiled-in path works, or the user has to give one.). -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers