On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki <tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org >> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Michael Paquier >> On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 6:30 PM, MauMau <maumau...@gmail.com> wrote: >> So you see the same behavior with the patch I sent and your refactoring, >> right? If yes, backpatching the one-liner is the safest bet to me. We could >> keep the refactoring for HEAD if it makes sense. > > Yes. And It's fine to me that your patch will be applied to previous > releases and my patch to HEAD only. This is a good (rare?) chance to reduce > the Windows-specific code, so I want to take advantage of it.
Yes, I can follow that argument. >> Something is wrong with the format of your patch by the way. My Windows >> and even OSX environments recognize it as a binary file, though I can read >> it in any editor and I cannot apply it cleanly with a simple patch command. >> Could you send it again and double-check? > > Ouch, the Git shell included in GitHub Desktop for Windows produced the diff > in UTF-16 and CR/LF line terminators. I haven't found how to fix it, so I > generated the attached patch on Linux. Please check it. And the patch got twice smaller in size. Thanks. >> > To reproduce the OP's problem, I modified pg_ctl.c to disable >> > SECURITY_SERVICE_RID when spawning postgres.exe. >> >> So basically you allocated a SID to drop via AllocateAndInitializeSid, >> called _CreateRestrictedToken and let the process being spawned? I think >> that this is the patch attached (win32-disable-service-rid.patch). Could >> you confirm? I want to be sure that we are testing the same things. > > Yes, I did the same. Hm.. I have just tested HEAD, my patch and your patch using my patch test on pg_ctl.c, but I am always getting pgwin32_is_service set to 0 when running pg_ctl start from a terminal, and set it to 1 when running pg_ctl service to register the service startup. Could you precise in which ways you started the Postgres instance and could you post the patch of pg_ctl you used? I am afraid that I am taking it incorrectly because I am not able to see any differences. Also, did you test the patch I posted and were you able to see the same differences as with your patch? I still think that my short patch is logically correct but if the tests are not we are in a no-go position for any fix posted on this thread. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
