Re: [Patch] - Fix for bug #2558, InitDB failed to run - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: [Patch] - Fix for bug #2558, InitDB failed to run
Date
Msg-id 200608151445.k7FEjME28707@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [Patch] - Fix for bug #2558, InitDB failed to run  (Andreas Pflug <pgadmin@pse-consulting.de>)
List pgsql-patches
Andreas Pflug wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Andreas Pflug wrote:
> >> Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> I am more than somewhat perplexed as to why the NUL device should be a
> >>>> security risk ... what are they thinking??
> >>>>
> >>> Frankly, I don't believe it; even Microsoft can't be that stupid.
> >>> And I can't find any suggestion that they've done this in a google
> >>> search.  I think the OP is misdiagnosing his problem.
> >>>
> >> An older message suggests that a service pack induced this problem, per
> >> MS. I just tried it as non-admin on a W2K3 machine with recent hotfixes,
> >> and the command "dir >nul" _did_ work for me.
> >> Though neglected, it still sounds like a virus scanner issue to me.
> >
> > Yes, it seems we will need more information on this.  We need someone at
> > a win32 command prompt to show us a "> nul" failure.
>
> OTOH,
> what issues might arise if the output is redirected to a legal tmp file?

No idea, but we aren't going to change the code without more facts.  We
don't have the resources to be making code changes without concrete
information.

--
  Bruce Momjian   bruce@momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Andreas Pflug
Date:
Subject: Re: [Patch] - Fix for bug #2558, InitDB failed to run
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Partial Index wording as per BUG