| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Giles Lean <giles(dot)lean(at)pobox(dot)com>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: is_absolute_path incorrect on Windows |
| Date: | 2010-06-01 22:38:05 |
| Message-ID: | 201006012238.o51Mc5I21348@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)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(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ None of us is going to be here forever. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2010-06-02 00:14:26 | Re: [RFC] A tackle to the leaky VIEWs for RLS |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-06-01 22:34:38 | Re: is_absolute_path incorrect on Windows |