Re: [PATCHES] stderr win32 admin check

2004-06-15 Thread Dave Page
-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 admin check on win32 abort startup, similar to unix.

Re: [PATCHES] stderr win32 admin check

2004-06-15 Thread Magnus Hagander
snip 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,

Re: [PATCHES] stderr win32 admin check

2004-06-15 Thread Dave Page
-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 snip Oh, and I notice the use of the PowerUsers group - iirc, there is no such group on NT4

Re: [PATCHES] stderr win32 admin check

2004-06-15 Thread Tom Lane
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 don't

Re: [PATCHES] stderr win32 admin check

2004-06-15 Thread Magnus Hagander
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 was a

Re: [PATCHES] stderr win32 admin check

2004-06-15 Thread Tom Lane
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. Well, isn't

Re: [PATCHES] stderr win32 admin check

2004-06-15 Thread Dave Page
-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] writes: Can't run Postgres securely would be a

Re: [PATCHES] stderr win32 admin check

2004-06-15 Thread Matthew T. O'Connor
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

[PATCHES] PITR Archival

2004-06-15 Thread Simon Riggs
I enclose a working set of context diff patches and new files to make PITR archiving work, as of cvstip (NOW). You'll see the new options in the postgresql.conf...though you may wish to use archive_debug = true as well, when testing. There is one bug: shutdown doesn't work quite right. I

Re: [PATCHES] stderr win32 admin check

2004-06-15 Thread Dave Page
-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 backend, and I

Re: [PATCHES] Fix for erroneous warning on Shutdown

2004-06-15 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 19:25, Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Minor patch to correct erroneous warning in cvs tip, believed to be a very minor regression. This patch is wrong; it effectively disables the warning altogether. When a shutdown was requested within

Re: [PATCHES] PITR Archival

2004-06-15 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 16:34, Simon Riggs wrote: I enclose a working set of context diff patches and new files to make PITR archiving work, as of cvstip (NOW). You'll see the new options in the postgresql.conf...though you may wish to use archive_debug = true as well, when testing. There

Re: [PATCHES] stderr win32 admin check

2004-06-15 Thread Andreas Pflug
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

Re: [PATCHES] PITR Archival

2004-06-15 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 04:34:30PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: I have a considerable amount still to learn about CVS, diff and patch, so anybody wanting to spend 10-15 mins on the phone with me would greatly enhance my chances of helping patch my patch, when the bugs roll in. Can't help you

Re: [PATCHES] stderr win32 admin check

2004-06-15 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [PATCHES] stderr win32 admin check

2004-06-15 Thread Andrew Dunstan
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

Re: [PATCHES] Fix for erroneous warning on Shutdown

2004-06-15 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As of now, (i.e. even including the new bgwriter shutdown) if you: 1. start postmaster 2. do some work that writes xlog 3. shutdown within some few seconds of startup you get a WARNING suggesting you increase CHECKPOINT_SEGMENTS, which is clearly

Re: [PATCHES] Fix for erroneous warning on Shutdown

2004-06-15 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 19:33, Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As of now, (i.e. even including the new bgwriter shutdown) if you: 1. start postmaster 2. do some work that writes xlog 3. shutdown within some few seconds of startup you get a WARNING suggesting you

Re: [PATCHES] Fix for erroneous warning on Shutdown

2004-06-15 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Shutdown was via CTRL-Cmake a difference? Wouldn't think so. I can force the message to appear if I do a *manual* CHECKPOINT command within thirty seconds of startup. I'm not sure if that should be considered wrong or not, but in any case it doesn't

Re: [PATCHES] Fix for erroneous warning on Shutdown

2004-06-15 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Shutdown was via CTRL-Cmake a difference? Wouldn't think so. I can force the message to appear if I do a *manual* CHECKPOINT command within thirty seconds of startup. I'm not sure if that should be considered wrong or not, but in

Re: [PATCHES] Fix for erroneous warning on Shutdown

2004-06-15 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Just to confirm that Simon is not suffering this uniquely, I saw this the other day on Windows, I believe - meant to report it but it got away from me. Oh, I bet I know what's going on --- are you guys launching the postmaster in a console window and

Re: [PATCHES] stderr win32 admin check

2004-06-15 Thread Dave Page
-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 service isn't a sufficient answer, and indeed the

Re: [PATCHES] Fix for erroneous warning on Shutdown

2004-06-15 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 21:04, Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Just to confirm that Simon is not suffering this uniquely, I saw this the other day on Windows, I believe - meant to report it but it got away from me. Oh, I bet I know what's going on --- are you

Re: [PATCHES] stderr win32 admin check

2004-06-15 Thread Tom Lane
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 do that if

Re: [PATCHES] stderr win32 admin check

2004-06-15 Thread Tom Lane
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 possible

Re: [PATCHES] stderr win32 admin check

2004-06-15 Thread Andreas Pflug
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

Re: [PATCHES] stderr win32 admin check

2004-06-15 Thread Dave Page
-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: you can only run one instance as a service on a single

Re: [PATCHES] stderr win32 admin check

2004-06-15 Thread Magnus Hagander
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 you suggest

Re: [PATCHES] stderr win32 admin check

2004-06-15 Thread Magnus Hagander
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

Re: [PATCHES] stderr win32 admin check

2004-06-15 Thread Andrew Dunstan
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 installer

Re: [PATCHES] stderr win32 admin check

2004-06-15 Thread Andrew Dunstan
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 as flexible as

Re: [PATCHES] stderr win32 admin check

2004-06-15 Thread Magnus Hagander
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

Re: [PATCHES] stderr win32 admin check

2004-06-15 Thread Bruce Momjian
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 I have been working on integrating pg_autovacuum

Re: [PATCHES] stderr win32 admin check

2004-06-15 Thread Bruce Momjian
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 keep it as

Re: [PATCHES] PITR Archival

2004-06-15 Thread Bruce Momjian
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at: http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches I will try to apply it once it is reviewed. --- Simon Riggs wrote: I enclose a working set

Re: [PATCHES] PITR Archival

2004-06-15 Thread Bruce Momjian
Simon Riggs wrote: Also note: archive_mode is not designed to be turned on/off frequently. It is possible to confuse it if you turn it on, then restart with it off, then turn it on again. That is likely to create a hole in the archive history of xlogs and you will not be able to recover

Re: [PATCHES] Fix for erroneous warning on Shutdown

2004-06-15 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Shutdown was via CTRL-Cmake a difference? Wouldn't think so. I can force the message to appear if I do a *manual* CHECKPOINT command within thirty seconds of startup. I'm not sure if that should be considered wrong or not, but

Re: [PATCHES] Fix for erroneous warning on Shutdown

2004-06-15 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I just did CHECKPOINT;CHECKPOINT and got the warning in the logs. This needs to be fixed. See code: /* * Ideally we should only warn if this checkpoint was * requested due to running out of segment files, and not

Re: [PATCHES] Fix for erroneous warning on Shutdown

2004-06-15 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I just did CHECKPOINT;CHECKPOINT and got the warning in the logs. This needs to be fixed. See code: /* * Ideally we should only warn if this checkpoint was * requested due to running out of

Re: [PATCHES] Fix for erroneous warning on Shutdown

2004-06-15 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: I could argue that a client-driven process that issues CHECKPOINT every few seconds is equally deserving of a warning. The only thing wrong is that the HINT is inapplicable ... but that's why it's a HINT and not part of the main

Re: [PATCHES] Fix for erroneous warning on Shutdown

2004-06-15 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: I could argue that a client-driven process that issues CHECKPOINT every few seconds is equally deserving of a warning. The only thing wrong is that the HINT is inapplicable ... but that's why it's a HINT and not

Re: [PATCHES] Fix for erroneous warning on Shutdown

2004-06-15 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: ... The question stands though: why isn't it appropriate to warn of overly-frequently-issued manual checkpoints? ... the warning is for cases when you are filling up the WAL logs too quickly and checkpoints are happening too frequently.

Re: [PATCHES] Fix for erroneous warning on Shutdown

2004-06-15 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: ... The question stands though: why isn't it appropriate to warn of overly-frequently-issued manual checkpoints? ... the warning is for cases when you are filling up the WAL logs too quickly and checkpoints are