Thread: initdb --allow-group-access behaviour in windows
Hi Hackers,
During the testing of new feature allowing group access mode for the data directory by specifying initdb --allow-group-access by one of my collegue, we didn't observe any change in the data folder permissions. With/without group access the data folder have permissions to the group.
As Microsoft windows doesn't support POSIX style of permissions, we always set for the permissions GUC's as not supported in windows. Even the new GUC that is added with
--allow-group-access feature also mentioned the same.
The initdb --allow-group-access doesn't have any impact on the microsoft windows, so I feel it should be better to write the same in initdb docs?
need a patch?
Regards,
Haribabu Kommi
Fujitsu Australia
On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 05:34:05PM +1100, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > As Microsoft windows doesn't support POSIX style of permissions, we > always set for the permissions GUC's as not supported in > windows. Even the new GUC that is added with --allow-group-access > feature also mentioned the same. > > The initdb --allow-group-access doesn't have any impact on the > microsoft windows, so I feel it should be better to write the same > in initdb docs? Sounds right. We may just want an extra sentence in the paragraph describing --allow-group-access to mention that this parameter has no effect on Windows. > need a patch? Always. -- Michael
Attachment
On 2/1/19 10:14 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 05:34:05PM +1100, Haribabu Kommi wrote: >> As Microsoft windows doesn't support POSIX style of permissions, we >> always set for the permissions GUC's as not supported in >> windows. Even the new GUC that is added with --allow-group-access >> feature also mentioned the same. >> >> The initdb --allow-group-access doesn't have any impact on the >> microsoft windows, so I feel it should be better to write the same >> in initdb docs? > > Sounds right. We may just want an extra sentence in the paragraph > describing --allow-group-access to mention that this parameter has no > effect on Windows. > >> need a patch? > > Always. Hrm, seems like I missed that. Do you mind writing something that makes sense to Windows users and I'll have a look? Thanks, -- -David david@pgmasters.net
On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 07:14:19PM +0200, David Steele wrote: > Hrm, seems like I missed that. Do you mind writing something that makes > sense to Windows users and I'll have a look? Perhaps something like the attached? -- Michael
Attachment
On 2/2/19 3:05 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > + files created by <command>initdb</command>. This option is irrelevant > + on <productname>Windows</productname> as it does not support > + <acronym>POSIX</acronym>-style group permissions. How about: + files created by <command>initdb</command>. This option is ignored + on <productname>Windows</productname>, which does not support + <acronym>POSIX</acronym>-style group permissions. Regards, -- -David david@pgmasters.net
On Sat, Feb 02, 2019 at 08:50:14AM +0200, David Steele wrote: > How about: > > + files created by <command>initdb</command>. This option is ignored > + on <productname>Windows</productname>, which does not support > + <acronym>POSIX</acronym>-style group permissions. Fine for me. Anybody else has an opinion to offer? -- Michael
Attachment
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 10:34 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 02, 2019 at 08:50:14AM +0200, David Steele wrote:
> How about:
>
> + files created by <command>initdb</command>. This option is ignored
> + on <productname>Windows</productname>, which does not support
> + <acronym>POSIX</acronym>-style group permissions.
Fine for me. Anybody else has an opinion to offer?
+1 to the above changes. Thanks for working on it.
Regards,
Haribabu Kommi
Fujitsu Australia
On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 10:27:05AM +1100, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > +1 to the above changes. Thanks for working on it. Okay, done. -- Michael