Neil,
Here it is :)
Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778
Remember to vote!
Index: doc/src/sgml/plperl.sgml
===
RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql-server/doc/
On Sunday 02 May 2004 11:22, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Dear patchers,
>
> please find attached my second patch submission for adding
> new aggregate functions:
>
> (1) boolean-and and boolean-or aggregates named bool_and and bool_or.
> they should correspond to standard sql every and some/any aggr
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I must confess I think this scheme is overkill - I can't think
of a use case where one would want a relocatable installation
which would any pattern other than the one we are thinking of
for the windows binary installer. Are we taking flexibility too
fa
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >+ if (toupper(*src) != toupper(*src))
> >
> >
>
> Shouldn't this be
>
> if (toupper(*src) != toupper(*dst))
>
> ?
>
Yep, fixed.
> For completeness, you should probably also check for network
> drive paths ("\\machine\sharename\foo
Bruce Momjian wrote:
+ if (toupper(*src) != toupper(*src))
Shouldn't this be
if (toupper(*src) != toupper(*dst))
?
For completeness, you should probably also check for network drive paths
("\\machine\sharename\foo").
I also think we should just canonicalise everything early, and then
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I guess what you are saying is we should have a configure-time option to
> >> address configured directories via relative paths from the executable's
> >> directory, rather than absolute paths? Seems reasonable ..
Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
> Just listening in on this thread I would be inclined to agree that
> the Win32 PostgeSQL should run under its own user given the history of
> Windows security. FWIW I know that Installshield (one of the most
> popular installers) and the default settings for MSI mean t
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Momjian
> Sent: 04 May 2004 16:08
> To: Magnus Hagander
> Cc: Tom Lane; Andrew Dunstan; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Run-as-admin warning for win32
>
>
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have never had to create a user to install any other software on my
laptop.
How much else that you have installed runs as a service?
OTOH, I just installed apache and it is running the service as
LocalSystem :-(
cheers
andrew
---(end of broadcast)
> > Yes, you need to create another user.
> > When running as a service, just tell the installer. It
> should set up
> > required permissions. Then start the service as normal using the
> > Service Control Manager.
> >
> > When running manually, you will have to grant the postgres user the
> >
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > The installer-skeleton I have right now permits
> > installation as local
> > > system but recommends a user account. But that's just
> > functionality to
> > > remove, so that's easily done. In the other case, it prompts for
> > > username and password to run as.
> > The installer-skeleton I have right now permits
> installation as local
> > system but recommends a user account. But that's just
> functionality to
> > remove, so that's easily done. In the other case, it prompts for
> > username and password to run as.
>
> How would it install on an XP
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > . if the installer is running as Administrator, it should create a
> > > Postgres user
> >
> > > IOW, we need to make it as easy as possible to be secure.
> >
> > No objection to that idea ...
>
> I don't think we should create a postgres user. We should tell the gu
Magnus Hagander wrote:
. if the installer is running as Administrator, it should create a
Postgres user
IOW, we need to make it as easy as possible to be secure.
No objection to that idea ...
I don't think we should create a postgres user. We should tell the guy
who installs it
> > . if the installer is running as Administrator, it should create a
> > Postgres user
>
> > IOW, we need to make it as easy as possible to be secure.
>
> No objection to that idea ...
I don't think we should create a postgres user. We should tell the guy
who installs it to do that, and have
On Tuesday 04 May 2004 13:47, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > I played a bit with that code. According to Microsoft samples
> > for service managers, errors and events should be logged to
> > eventlog. so I added a function (almost copy of sample
> > service code), it's a messy, but it was enough to see
"Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> . if the installer is running as Administrator, it should create a
> Postgres user
> IOW, we need to make it as easy as possible to be secure.
No objection to that idea ...
regards, tom lane
---(end o
> I played a bit with that code. According to Microsoft samples
> for service managers, errors and events should be logged to
> eventlog. so I added a function (almost copy of sample
> service code), it's a messy, but it was enough to see what is
> happening with the service.
Consider using e
> >> Why? If we refuse to run as root on Unix, I do not see an
> argument
> >> for being more forgiving on Windows.
>
> > I am not sure it is as easy to run as non-admin on Win32 as
> it is to
> > run as non-root on Unix. Is it?
It is a little bit more tricky, but not much. I'd say it's mor
> 1. You forgot to check "localsystem", as well as "domain
> admins". These two have even higher permissions than the ones
> you test for, and one of them is the default if Postgre ever
> makes it to become a service.
Not at all. Local System is a member of the Administrators group (no, it
does
Sorry. That link was internal to the document. This one should work.
http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/b/8/1b8fc001-6f67-4ea1-b0f2-8add1da8cbc0/SecDefs2003.doc
Regards,
Thomas Hallgren
"Shachar Shemesh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Thomas Hallgren wrote:
Thomas Hallgren wrote:
http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/b/8/1b8fc001-6f67-4ea1-b0f2-8add1da8cbc0/_Toc42414596
Link does not work.
Exerpt:
Unfortunately, these permissions are also the same permissions that allow
power users to:
? Introduce Trojan horses that, if executed by administrato
> 2. Are you sure "Powerusers" is such a good idea? It's the default for
> all non-admin users. When Postgres becomes a service, it's going to be
> relatively easy to configure it to run as a low-priv user. Until then,
> however, isn't it too difficult for admins to set up the system for it
> to ru
Tom Lane said:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Why? If we refuse to run as root on Unix, I do not see an argument
>>> for being more forgiving on Windows.
>
>> I am not sure it is as easy to run as non-admin on Win32 as it is to
>> run as non-root on Unix. Is it
24 matches
Mail list logo
