From: Tom Lane on
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
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