Prev: bitmap-index-scan faster than seq-scan on full-table-scan(gin index)
Next: [BUGS] BUG #5487: dblink failed with 63 bytes connection names
From: Tom Lane on 1 Jun 2010 18:34 Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Hm. Neither of these obviously exclude the case of an absolute path >> that happens to lead to cwd. I'm not sure how important that is, >> but still ... > We currently do that with path_is_prefix_of_path(). Maybe that needs to > be called as well. I think you misunderstood my point: in the places where we're insisting on a relative path, I don't think we *want* an absolute path to be accepted. What I was trying to say is that these proposed function names don't obviously mean "a relative path that does not try to break out of cwd". regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Bruce Momjian on 1 Jun 2010 18:38
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Hm. Neither of these obviously exclude the case of an absolute path > >> that happens to lead to cwd. I'm not sure how important that is, > >> but still ... > > > We currently do that with path_is_prefix_of_path(). Maybe that needs to > > be called as well. > > I think you misunderstood my point: in the places where we're insisting > on a relative path, I don't think we *want* an absolute path to be > accepted. What I was trying to say is that these proposed function > names don't obviously mean "a relative path that does not try to > break out of cwd". Oh, OK. I know Magnus has a patch that he was working on and will send it out soon. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + None of us is going to be here forever. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers |