"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Attached is the updated version of this patch, which now includes proper
> testing for win32 service running. This is tested and verified with
> Claudios service wrapper pg_ctl patch (including the parts I added and
> sent in a short while ago).
Appl
ne; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [PATCHES] stderr & win32 admin check
>
>
>
>I am confused. There are no hooks to call this function right now. Is
>it called by Claudio's patch?
>
>---
>
>
&g
rom: Magnus Hagander
> >Sent: den 19 juni 2004 13:55
> >To: Bruce Momjian
> >Cc: Tom Lane; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: Re: [PATCHES] stderr & win32 admin check
> >
> >
> >I plan to resubmit this patch shortly (hopefully during the weekend)
> >inc
>-Original Message-
>From: Magnus Hagander
>Sent: den 19 juni 2004 13:55
>To: Bruce Momjian
>Cc: Tom Lane; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [PATCHES] stderr & win32 admin check
>
>
>I plan to resubmit this patch shortly (hopefully during the weekend)
>including s
I plan to resubmit this patch shortly (hopefully during the weekend)
including supprot for detecting if running as a service (and thus pick
eventlog support). From what I can tell, the rest should be Ok to go, so
expect a new one shortly.
//Magnus
>-Original Message-
>From: Bruce Momjian
Magnus, where are we on this refactoring process.
---
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> * Created function write_stderr(const char *fmt, ...), used
> >before elog
> >> can be used. This function will write to stderr on unix and o
> At least I don't htink it's in what Claudio has so far - Claudio? Lots
> of work to get into your framework?
The original patch I submitted actually *required* a service name, allowing
any number of postgres installations. I have no intention of removing that.
Cheers,
Claudio
---
Certain dis
Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> So? I don't follow why "run it as a service" isn't a sufficient answer,
> >> and indeed the preferred way to do it.
>
> > We don't know what the usage pattern is going to be on Windows - I think
> > we need to
Dave Page wrote:
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Matthew T. O'Connor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tue 6/15/2004 4:06 PM
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Tom Lane; Magnus Hagander; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [PATCHES] stderr & win32 admin check
>
>
>>>It hasn't been discussed, but it would be fairly trivial to
>>>add this to the service installer. (A bit more work on the MSI
>>>installer, but we could do with that one just installing the
>>>default instance at least for starters).
>>
>> Correcting myself on this one - the MSI installer alread
Tom Lane said:
> Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> So? I don't follow why "run it as a service" isn't a sufficient
>>> answer, and indeed the preferred way to do it.
>
>> We don't know what the usage pattern is going to be on Windows - I
>> think we need to keep it
Magnus Hagander said:
>>It hasn't been discussed, but it would be fairly trivial to
>>add this to the service installer. (A bit more work on the MSI
>>installer, but we could do with that one just installing the
>>default instance at least for starters).
>
> Correcting myself on this one - the MSI
>It hasn't been discussed, but it would be fairly trivial to
>add this to the service installer. (A bit more work on the MSI
>installer, but we could do with that one just installing the
>default instance at least for starters).
Correcting myself on this one - the MSI installer already supports
>> If you mean only run one instance of postmaster as service,
>> that's not true.
>> If you like two pgsql servers (i.e. db clusters), you can
>> install two services, both using the same binary with
>> different cmd line arguments.
>
>In which case, what would 'net stop postgresql' do? What yo
> -Original Message-
> From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 15 June 2004 22:28
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Tom Lane; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [PATCHES] stderr & win32 admin check
>
> Dave Page wrote:
>
> >
> >
&g
Dave Page wrote:
you can only run one
instance as a service on a single machine.
If you mean only run one instance of postmaster as service, that's not true.
If you like two pgsql servers (i.e. db clusters), you can install two
services, both using the same binary with different cmd line argume
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> So? I don't follow why "run it as a service" isn't a sufficient answer,
>> and indeed the preferred way to do it.
> We don't know what the usage pattern is going to be on Windows - I think
> we need to keep it as flexible as possibl
"Dave Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> So? I don't follow why "run it as a service" isn't a
>> sufficient answer, and indeed the preferred way to do it.
> It is the preferred method, however two reasons not to spring to mind:
> first, I bet you and most others on this list might not want to
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 15 June 2004 19:11
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Magnus Hagander; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [PATCHES] stderr & win32 admin check
>
> So? I don't follow why "run it as a serv
Tom Lane wrote:
"Dave Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Well, that's kinda the point. If you are a hacker who has local admin
privs (not exactly unusual on Windows networks - in some cases Power
User group membership is required to run legacy software), you *cannot*
run PostgreSQL except as a se
"Dave Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, that's kinda the point. If you are a hacker who has local admin
> privs (not exactly unusual on Windows networks - in some cases Power
> User group membership is required to run legacy software), you *cannot*
> run PostgreSQL except as a service, thus
Dave Page wrote:
It could still be run on NT4 under the following conditions:
1) Running as a service
2) Running if the user logged in is not an administrator.
Well, isn't "running as a service" sufficient? I thought
that was the only interesting case for non-hackers anyway.
As long as y
-Original Message-
From: Matthew T. O'Connor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue 6/15/2004 4:06 PM
To: Dave Page
Cc: Tom Lane; Magnus Hagander; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] stderr & win32 admin check
> I have been working on integrating pg_autovacuum into the ba
Dave Page wrote:
Personally I don't care as I use XP/2K3 anyway, but having been told my
autovacuum service code needed to support NT4
I have been working on integrating pg_autovacuum into the backend, and I
have it working, I'm just trying to clean up some lose ends before I
submit another p
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 15 June 2004 14:58
> To: Magnus Hagander
> Cc: Dave Page; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [PATCHES] stderr & win32 admin check
>
> "Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "Can't run Postgres securely" would be a more-than-sufficient
>> reason not to support NT4, IMHO.
> It could still be run on NT4 under the following conditions:
> 1) Running as a service
> 2) Running if the user logged in is not an administrator.
> > This will prevent PostgreSQL being runable on NT4 by anyone
> with admin
> > privileges, except as a service.
>
> Are we actually supporting NT4? I recall quite a bit of
> discussion long ago about which versions of Windows were
> really reasonable to support, but I don't recall if there
"Dave Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This will prevent PostgreSQL being runable on NT4 by anyone with admin
> privileges, except as a service.
Are we actually supporting NT4? I recall quite a bit of discussion long
ago about which versions of Windows were really reasonable to support,
but I
> -Original Message-
> From: Magnus Hagander [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 15 June 2004 09:16
> To: Dave Page; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [PATCHES] stderr & win32 admin check
>
>
>
>
> > Oh, and I notice the use of the PowerUsers g
> Oh, and I notice the use of the PowerUsers group - iirc,
> there is no such group on NT4 domains, so the attempt to get
> the SID will fail.
That is one weird NT4.. :-)
First of all, "Power Users" is not a domain group, it is a local group.
It has nothing to do with your domain. As such,
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Magnus Hagander
> Sent: 14 June 2004 21:49
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PATCHES] stderr & win32 admin check
>
> The patch makes the "if user is ad
>> * Created function write_stderr(const char *fmt, ...), used
>before elog
>> can be used. This function will write to stderr on unix and on win32
>> fconsole. It will write to the eventlog on win32 when running as a
>> service.
>> * Changed all (most? I think I got all) fprintf(stderr,...)
>to
"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Created function write_stderr(const char *fmt, ...), used before elog
> can be used. This function will write to stderr on unix and on win32
> fconsole. It will write to the eventlog on win32 when running as a
> service.
> * Changed all (most? I thi
Per previous patch, win32 required the check for admin privs to be moved
from main.c into postmaster.c, because elog was not available at this
time. While working on fixing that all the way (moving the unix one as
well), I realised this wasn't good, and did it this way instead:
* Created function
34 matches
Mail list logo
