Dave Page wrote:
I don't think it's enough that we need to care about it really. I'm
thinking we could perhaps even just never set that, and not bother with
the version check...
That was how I originally coded it, but figured we might as well set
it if we can - it's not like it's expensive
The attached patch adds support for the Windows 7 beta which we've had
a few reports of incompatibility with. When we startup using pg_ctl on
Windows, we create a job object (a logical grouping of processes on
Windows) to which we apply various security options. One of these
Dave Page wrote:
The attached patch adds support for the Windows 7 beta which we've had
a few reports of incompatibility with. When we startup using pg_ctl on
Windows, we create a job object (a logical grouping of processes on
Windows) to which we apply various security options. One of these
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Dave Page wrote:
The attached patch adds support for the Windows 7 beta which we've had
a few reports of incompatibility with. When we startup using pg_ctl on
Windows, we create a job object (a
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 12:34:56 Dave Page wrote:
I'm not entirely sure what has change in the SCM to cause this yet
(Windows 7 documentation is somewhat thin on the ground at the
moment), but the patch avoids theporblem by only setting
JOB_OBJECT_UILIMIT_HANDLES on earlier OSs.
Doesn't
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 12:34:56 Dave Page wrote:
I'm not entirely sure what has change in the SCM to cause this yet
(Windows 7 documentation is somewhat thin on the ground at the
moment), but the patch avoids theporblem by only setting
JOB_OBJECT_UILIMIT_HANDLES on
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 12:34:56 Dave Page wrote:
I'm not entirely sure what has change in the SCM to cause this yet
(Windows 7 documentation is somewhat thin on the ground at the
moment), but the patch avoids
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 12:34:56 Dave Page wrote:
I'm not entirely sure what has change in the SCM to cause this yet
(Windows 7 documentation is somewhat thin on the ground at the
moment),
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
The attached patch adds support for the Windows 7 beta which we've had
a few reports of incompatibility with. When we startup using pg_ctl on
Windows, we create a job object (a logical grouping of processes on
Windows) to which we apply various security
Tom Lane wrote:
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
The attached patch adds support for the Windows 7 beta which we've had
a few reports of incompatibility with. When we startup using pg_ctl on
Windows, we create a job object (a logical grouping of processes on
Windows) to which we apply
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
It would be good to understand what the problem actually is and what are
the risks of running without this flag. I assume we put it in there
for a reason.
The risks are pretty low imho. Not having the flag means that the
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
The risks are pretty low imho. Not having the flag means that the
server has access to the handles of objects in other jobs in the same
session. When running as a service, that's basically nothing as the
service runs in it's own session and is isolated
12 matches
Mail list logo
