| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Setting restrictedtoken in pg_regress |
| Date: | 2023-06-14 11:02:30 |
| Message-ID: | 822e6e3c-d904-fe09-98b6-22d6a08abdc8@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2023-06-12 Mo 19:43, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 08:29:19AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> I am actually a bit confused with the return value of
>> CreateRestrictedProcess() on failures in restricted_token.c. Wouldn't
>> it be cleaner to return INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE rather than 0 in these
>> cases?
> My suspicion is that this was chosen to align with CreateProcess and to
> allow things like
>
> if (!CreateRestrictedProcess(...))
Probably, it's been a while. I doubt it's worth changing at this point,
and we could just change pg_regress.c to use a boolean test like the above.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB:https://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Aleksander Alekseev | 2023-06-14 11:08:03 | Re: [PATCH] Slight improvement of worker_spi.c example |
| Previous Message | Aleksander Alekseev | 2023-06-14 10:56:34 | Re: Pluggable toaster |