I am confused. There are no hooks to call this function right now. Is it called by Claudio's patch?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Magnus Hagander wrote: > Attached is the updated version of this patch, which now includes proper > testing for win32 service running. This is tested and verified with > Claudios service wrapper pg_ctl patch (including the parts I added and > sent in a short while ago). > > security.c goes in backend/port/win32/ > > //Magnus > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Magnus Hagander > >Sent: den 19 juni 2004 13:55 > >To: Bruce Momjian > >Cc: Tom Lane; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: [PATCHES] stderr & win32 admin check > > > > > >I plan to resubmit this patch shortly (hopefully during the weekend) > >including supprot for detecting if running as a service (and thus pick > >eventlog support). From what I can tell, the rest should be Ok > >to go, so > >expect a new one shortly. > > > >//Magnus > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > >> > >>Magnus, where are we on this refactoring process. > >> > >>--------------------------------------------------------------- > >>------------ > >> > >>Magnus Hagander wrote: > >>> >> * Created function write_stderr(const char *fmt, ...), used > >>> >before elog > >>> >> can be used. This function will write to stderr on unix > >>and on win32 > >>> >> fconsole. It will write to the eventlog on win32 when > >running as a > >>> >> service. > >>> >> * Changed all (most? I think I got all) fprintf(stderr,...) > >>> >to use this > >>> >> function instead. That way, we gain the ability to put > >>all the other > >>> >> preivously-stderr-messages to the eventlog as well. > >>> > > >>> >I'm not sure this is a good idea. The remaining uses of > >stderr were > >>> >that way for a reason, not because someone had forgot to > >change them > >>> >into elog calls. It would be a lot less invasive to just move the > >>> >privilege check as you originally intended. > >>> > >>> > >>> I figured as long as nothing "dangerous" (e.g. using memory > >>allocations > >>> etc) is done in the function, it should be just as safe as > >>fprintf. On > >>> Unix, it does nothing more than a simple fprintf anyway (one call > >>> deeper). The only difference in practice is that we can put > >>them in the > >>> eventlog on win32 (again, only using calls that are safe in this > >>> context). If we do it the other way, we are going to lose > >these other > >>> messages when running as a service on win32 (since we > >>specifically are > >>> not using ereport(), per what you say above). > >>> > >>> Also, this would remove the check so you could do initdb and other > >>> operations that are blocked today (that don't go through > >>postmaster.c) > >>> when being root, I assumed that was not good either... > >>> > >>> //Magnus > >>> > >>> ---------------------------(end of > >>broadcast)--------------------------- > >>> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> > >> > >>-- > >> Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 > >> + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road > >> + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, > >>Pennsylvania 19073 > >> > > > >---------------------------(end of > >broadcast)--------------------------- > >TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend > > Content-Description: security.c [ Attachment, skipping... ] -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
