Re: Peter Eisentraut 2016-03-16 <56e8c221.1050...@gmx.net> > >> * it failed to check for S_IXUSR, so permissions 0700 were okay, in > >> contradiction with what the error message indicates. This is a > >> preexisting bug actually. Do we want to fix it by preventing a > >> user-executable file (possibly breaking compability with existing > >> executable key files), or do we want to document what the restriction > >> really is? > > > > I think we should not check for S_IXUSR. There is no reason for doing that. > > > > I can imagine that key files are sometimes copied around using USB > > drives with FAT file systems or other means of that sort where > > permissions can scrambled. While I hate gratuitous executable bits as > > much as the next person, insisting here would just create annoyances in > > practice. > > I'm happy with this patch except this minor point. Any final comments?
I'm fine with that change. Do you want me to update the patch or do you already have a new version, given it's marked as Ready for Committer? Christoph -- c...@df7cb.de | http://www.df7cb.de/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
