On 3/10/16 9:20 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 3/4/16 3:55 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> * it failed to check for S_IXUSR, so permissions 0700 were okay, in
>> contradiction with what the error message indicates. This is a
>> preexisting bug actually. Do we want to fix it by preventing a
>> user-executable file (possibly breaking compability with existing
>> executable key files), or do we want to document what the restriction
>> really is?
>
> I think we should not check for S_IXUSR. There is no reason for doing that.
>
> I can imagine that key files are sometimes copied around using USB
> drives with FAT file systems or other means of that sort where
> permissions can scrambled. While I hate gratuitous executable bits as
> much as the next person, insisting here would just create annoyances in
> practice.
I'm happy with this patch except this minor point. Any final comments?