Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> If we just didn't add the serial number at the end, then it would be
>>> impossible to create a shared memory segment for the same port again.
>>> That protects the port and not the datadir. But what if we change the
>>> name of the shared memory segment to be that of the data directory
>>> instead of the port?
>> That would help if there's only one possible spelling of the data
>> directory path ... otherwise not so much ...

> Well, we could run GetFullPathName() on it
> ( I think that
> should work - takes out the "relative vs absolute path" part at least.

> It won't take care of somebody having a junction pointing at the data
> directory and starting it against that one, but that's really someone
> *trying* to break the system. You wouldn't do that by mistake...

> Seems worthwhile to you? If so I can take a look at doing it when I get
> some spare time.

Sounds reasonable --- certainly it'd be better than the current
situation.  I assume that we can have long enough shared memory segment
names that the data directory path length isn't unduly constrained?

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(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

Reply via email to