Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 3/10/16 9:20 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On 3/4/16 3:55 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> * 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?
No, I think you're right about that one. Feel free to commit, or I can do it if you don't want to. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers