Re: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Windows service is not starting so there’s message in log: FATAL: "could not create shared memory segment “Global/PostgreSQL.851401618”: Permission denied”
От
Tom Lane
Тема
Re: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Windows service is not starting so there’s message in log: FATAL: "could not create shared memory segment “Global/PostgreSQL.851401618”: Permission denied”
Дата
Msg-id
20789.1474390434@sss.pgh.pa.us
Ответ на
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Windows service is not starting so there’smessage in log: FATAL: "could not create shared memory segment“Global/PostgreSQL.851401618”: Permissiondenied” Dmitry Vasilyev <d.vasilyev@postgrespro.ru>
Re: Windows service is not starting sothere’s message in log: FATAL: "could not create sharedmemory segment“Global/PostgreSQL.851401618”: Permissiondenied” Dmitry Vasilyev <d.vasilyev@postgrespro.ru>
Re: Windows service is not starting sothere’s message in log: FATAL: "could not create sharedmemory segment“Global/PostgreSQL.851401618”: Permissiondenied” Dmitry Vasilyev <d.vasilyev@postgrespro.ru>
Re: Re: [HACKERS] Windows service is not starting sothere’s message in log: FATAL: "could not createshared memory segment “Global/PostgreSQL.851401618”: Permissiondenied” Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Re: Re: [HACKERS] Windows service is not starting sothere’s message in log: FATAL: "could not createshared memory segment “Global/PostgreSQL.851401618”: Permissiondenied” Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Re: Re: [HACKERS] Windows service is not starting sothere’s message in log: FATAL: "could not createshared memory segment “Global/PostgreSQL.851401618”: Permissiondenied” Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Re: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Windows service is not starting so there’s message in log: FATAL: "could not create shared memory segment “Global/PostgreSQL.851401618”: Permission denied” Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Robert Haas writes: > Yeah, random() is the wrong thing. It should use PostmasterRandom(). > Fixed to do that instead. I am not very happy about this patch; have you considered the security implications of what you just did? If you haven't, I'll tell you: you just made the postmaster's selection of "random" cancel keys and password salts a lot more predictable. Formerly, the srandom() seed for those depended on both the postmaster start time and the time of the first connection request, but this change removes the first connection request from the equation. If you know the postmaster start time --- which we will happily tell any asker --- it will not take too many trials to find the seed that's in use. I'd be the first to agree that this point is inadequately documented in the code, but PostmasterRandom should be reserved for its existing security-related uses, not exposed to the world for (ahem) random other uses. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления