Re: FW: [CYGWIN] 7.2b3 postmaster doesn't start on Win98

From: mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Horák Daniel <horak(at)sit(dot)plzen-city(dot)cz>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Subject: Re: FW: [CYGWIN] 7.2b3 postmaster doesn't start on Win98
Date: 2001-12-04 12:38:56
Message-ID: 3C0CC3E0.3067E3E7@mohawksoft.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
>
> =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hor=E1k_Daniel?= <horak(at)sit(dot)plzen-city(dot)cz> writes:
> >> When trying to start the postmaster on win98se with cygwin
> >> I get told that the data directory must be 0700, but when I
> >> try to chmod to
> >> 700, it apparently succeds, but nothing permissions stay at
> >> 755. I suspect
> >> this to be because win98 has no real file protection (just a read only
> >> attribute)
>
> > It works on WinNT, Win2K, ... because full file security is implemented
> > only in this systems. There could be a dirty hack that disables the
> > check (for 0700 permissions on $DATADIR) in
> > src/backend/postmaster/postmaster.c. I don't know if it is possible to
> > do it during runtime for only Win9x systems.
>
> Ugh...
>
> Unless someone can think of a reasonable runtime check to distinguish
> win98 from newer systems, I think we have little choice but to make the
> data directory permissions check be #ifndef __CYGWIN__. I don't like
> this much, but (a) I don't want to hold up 7.2 while we look for better
> ideas, and (b) no one should consider a Windoze box secure anyway ;-).
>
> Comments?

I have an idea which my side step the whole question about Windows.

Why not have a postgres option which allows the admin to specify that Postgres
does not check file permissions? Then it becomes a documentation issue.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuo Ishii 2001-12-04 13:18:45 dynaloader/sunos4.h
Previous Message Cyril VELTER 2001-12-04 09:34:35 Re: Second call for platform testing