Re: [Patch] - Fix for bug #2558, InitDB failed to run

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [Patch] - Fix for bug #2558, InitDB failed to run
Date: 2006-08-14 20:52:00
Message-ID: 14074.1155588720@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> I am more than somewhat perplexed as to why the NUL device should be a
> security risk ... what are they thinking??

Frankly, I don't believe it; even Microsoft can't be that stupid.
And I can't find any suggestion that they've done this in a google
search. I think the OP is misdiagnosing his problem.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2006-08-14 23:39:25 domains code query
Previous Message Hannu Krosing 2006-08-14 20:41:29 Re: An Idea for planner hints

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message dror 2006-08-14 21:10:10 Re: [Patch] - Fix for bug #2558, InitDB failed to run
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2006-08-14 17:03:52 Re: [Patch] - Fix for bug #2558, InitDB failed to run