Andreas Pflug wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Andreas Pflug wrote: > >> Tom Lane wrote: > >>> Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>> > >>>> I am more than somewhat perplexed as to why the NUL device should be a > >>>> security risk ... what are they thinking?? > >>>> > >>> Frankly, I don't believe it; even Microsoft can't be that stupid. > >>> And I can't find any suggestion that they've done this in a google > >>> search. I think the OP is misdiagnosing his problem. > >>> > >> An older message suggests that a service pack induced this problem, per > >> MS. I just tried it as non-admin on a W2K3 machine with recent hotfixes, > >> and the command "dir >nul" _did_ work for me. > >> Though neglected, it still sounds like a virus scanner issue to me. > > > > Yes, it seems we will need more information on this. We need someone at > > a win32 command prompt to show us a "> nul" failure. > > OTOH, > what issues might arise if the output is redirected to a legal tmp file?
No idea, but we aren't going to change the code without more facts. We don't have the resources to be making code changes without concrete information. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
