| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Greg Jaskiewicz <gj(at)pointblue(dot)com(dot)pl>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Configuration include directory |
| Date: | 2011-11-17 16:03:45 |
| Message-ID: | 12705.1321545825@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mi nov 16 22:52:35 -0300 2011:
>> (Do we guard against recursive inclusion via plain old include? If
>> not, maybe this isn't worth worrying about.)
> Yes, we do
> FATAL: could not open configuration file "foo.conf": maximum nesting depth exceeded
Oh, right. So as long as the include-directory code path doesn't
interfere with tracking that nesting depth, I don't think it needs
any extra protection against include-the-same-directory.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-11-17 16:21:09 | Re: Refactoring on DROP/ALTER SET SCHEMA/ALTER RENAME TO statement |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-11-17 15:56:36 | Re: Removing postgres -f command line option |