From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | file_fdw vs relative paths |
Date: | 2020-07-15 11:22:21 |
Message-ID: | CABUevExx-hm=cit+A9LeKBH39srvk8Y2tEZeEAj5mP8YfzNKUg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
According to the documentation, the filename given in file_fdw must be an
absolute path. Hwever, it works perfectly fine with a relative path.
So either the documentation is wrong, or the code is wrong. It behaves the
same at least back to 9.5, I did not try it further back than that.
I can't find a reference to the code that limits this. AFAICT the
documentation has been there since day 1.
Question is, which one is right. Is there a reason we'd want to restrict it
to absolute pathnames?
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/>
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-07-15 11:23:57 | Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions |
Previous Message | Ajin Cherian | 2020-07-15 11:21:31 | Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions |