From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | 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 14:21:12 |
Message-ID: | 2369.1275402072@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Giles Lean wrote:
>> Names are hard, but if I understood the original post, the
>> revised function is intended to check that the directory is
>> below the current working directory.
> We check for things like ".." other places, though we could roll that
> into the macro if we wanted. Because we are adding a new function, that
> might make sense.
Yeah. If we were to go with Greg's suggestion of inventing a separate
is_relative_to_cwd test function, I'd expect that to insist on no ".."
while it was at it.
That seems like a fairly clean approach in the abstract, but I agree
that somebody would have to look closely at each existing usage to be
sure it works out well.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-06-01 14:43:24 | Re: dividing money by money |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2010-06-01 13:53:16 | Re: [RFC] A tackle to the leaky VIEWs for RLS |