From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Charlie Savage <cfis(at)savagexi(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 8.3 .4 + Vista + MingW + initdb = ACCESS_DENIED |
Date: | 2008-10-14 15:20:09 |
Message-ID: | 48F4B8A9.5000205@hagander.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> The user running initdb (or the postmaster) needs
>>> SeCreateGlobalPrivilege - which is something we cannot really start
>>> telling people they must have. My view is that we revert the change
>>> (well, replace it with something that looks less like a broken attempt
>>> to use the global namespace) and leave it at that. iirc, the use of
>>> the global namespace is there to ensure things work as they should
>>> under a non-console terminal services session - which is pretty rare
>>> and can usually be avoided.
>
>> I'm not so sure that non-console terminal service sessions should be
>> categorized as "pretty rare".
>
> Would there be any value in trying a global name first and falling back
> to non-global if that fails?
Hmm. We could fail on the specific error that we get in this case,
perhaps. I think it should be "a required privilege is not held by the
client", which shouldn't occur otherwise. If it's just "access denied",
that could equally well be caused by a running postmaster in a different
session under a different useraccount...
//Magnus
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2008-10-14 15:33:39 | Re: Version Number Function? |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2008-10-14 15:19:16 | Re: 8.3 .4 + Vista + MingW + initdb = ACCESS_DENIED |