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.
> 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
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+ 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