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
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
Attachments:
group-windows-initdb.patchtext/x-diff; charset=us-asciiDownload
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/initdb.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/initdb.sgml
index 4489b585c7..c3edc243b2 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/initdb.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/initdb.sgml
@@ -202,7 +202,9 @@ PostgreSQL documentation
<listitem>
<para>
Allows users in the same group as the cluster owner to read all cluster
- files created by <command>initdb</command>.
+ 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.
</para>
</listitem>
</varlistentry>
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
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