Dave Page wrote:
>> I don't think it's enough that we need to care about it really. I'm
>> thinking we could perhaps even just never set that, and not bother with
>> the version check...
>
> That was how I originally coded it, but figured we might as well set
> it if we can - it's not like it's ex
Dave Page writes:
> The risks are pretty low imho. Not having the flag means that the
> server has access to the handles of objects in other jobs in the same
> session. When running as a service, that's basically nothing as the
> service runs in it's own session and is isolated through other means
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> It would be good to understand what the problem actually is and what are
> the risks of running without this flag. I assume we put it in there
> for a reason.
The risks are pretty low imho. Not having the flag means that the
server has access t
Tom Lane wrote:
> Dave Page writes:
>> The attached patch adds support for the Windows 7 beta which we've had
>> a few reports of incompatibility with. When we startup using pg_ctl on
>> Windows, we create a job object (a logical grouping of processes on
>> Windows) to which we apply various secur
Dave Page writes:
> The attached patch adds support for the Windows 7 beta which we've had
> a few reports of incompatibility with. When we startup using pg_ctl on
> Windows, we create a job object (a logical grouping of processes on
> Windows) to which we apply various security options. One of th
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On Tuesday 27 January 2009 12:34:56 Dave Page wrote:
>>> I'm not entirely sure what has change in the SCM to cause this yet
>>> (Windows 7 documentation is somewhat thin on the ground at the
>>> moment), but the
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 January 2009 12:34:56 Dave Page wrote:
>> I'm not entirely sure what has change in the SCM to cause this yet
>> (Windows 7 documentation is somewhat thin on the ground at the
>> moment), but the patch avoids theporblem by on
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 January 2009 12:34:56 Dave Page wrote:
>> I'm not entirely sure what has change in the SCM to cause this yet
>> (Windows 7 documentation is somewhat thin on the ground at the
>> moment), but the patch avoids theporblem by only setting
>> JOB_OBJECT_UILIMIT_HA
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 12:34:56 Dave Page wrote:
> I'm not entirely sure what has change in the SCM to cause this yet
> (Windows 7 documentation is somewhat thin on the ground at the
> moment), but the patch avoids theporblem by only setting
> JOB_OBJECT_UILIMIT_HANDLES on earlier OSs.
Doesn't
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
>>
>> The attached patch adds support for the Windows 7 beta which we've had
>> a few reports of incompatibility with. When we startup using pg_ctl on
>> Windows, we create a job object (a logical grouping of processes
Dave Page wrote:
The attached patch adds support for the Windows 7 beta which we've had
a few reports of incompatibility with. When we startup using pg_ctl on
Windows, we create a job object (a logical grouping of processes on
Windows) to which we apply various security options. One of these
(JOB
The attached patch adds support for the Windows 7 beta which we've had
a few reports of incompatibility with. When we startup using pg_ctl on
Windows, we create a job object (a logical grouping of processes on
Windows) to which we apply various security options. One of these
(JOB_OBJECT_UILIMIT_HAN
12 matches
Mail list logo
