Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> If we just didn't add the serial number at the end, then it would be >>> impossible to create a shared memory segment for the same port again. >>> That protects the port and not the datadir. But what if we change the >>> name of the shared memory segment to be that of the data directory >>> instead of the port? >> >> That would help if there's only one possible spelling of the data >> directory path ... otherwise not so much ...
> Well, we could run GetFullPathName() on it > (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa364963.aspx). I think that > should work - takes out the "relative vs absolute path" part at least. > It won't take care of somebody having a junction pointing at the data > directory and starting it against that one, but that's really someone > *trying* to break the system. You wouldn't do that by mistake... > Seems worthwhile to you? If so I can take a look at doing it when I get > some spare time. Sounds reasonable --- certainly it'd be better than the current situation. I assume that we can have long enough shared memory segment names that the data directory path length isn't unduly constrained? regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
