| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade permission check |
| Date: | 2011-05-16 16:10:35 |
| Message-ID: | 17131.1305562235@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> "full access permissions" seems unhelpfully vague. Why not say
>> "you must have both read and write access to the current directory"?
> OK, I can do that, but they need execute permission in that directory
> too to look up file names in there. Should I say execute too?
I doubt it's worth worrying about. man chdir saith
In order for a directory to become the current directory, a process must
have execute (search) access to the directory.
I'm not entirely certain what happens if you chdir into a directory and
then someone revokes the bit afterwards, but I do not feel a need to
complicate the error message to cover such a case.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-05-16 16:32:56 | Re: pg_upgrade permission check |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-05-16 15:57:38 | Re: pg_upgrade permission check |