Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Anyone care about type "filename" ?

From: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Anyone care about type "filename" ?
Date: 2000-08-01 23:42:04
Message-ID: Pine.BSF.4.21.0008012041290.555-100000@thelab.hub.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Tom Lane wrote:

> The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> > okay, reword ... what would have been the difference between that and
> > char(256)? :)  I'm just curious as to whether it had any checks that would
> > have validated it as being a filename or something like that, that's all
> 
> Actually, the input converter did have some code to expand "~username"
> paths.  But putting that in the input converter was broken by design;
> you don't want the home directory expanded in a path when it's stored
> into the database, you want to expand it when the path is used (what
> if the user's home dir has moved since you made the DB entry?)

Ah, okay, cool ... thanks :)  Just seemed like a weird type to define if
you don't do anything different then char(256) would have done ...


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Larry RosenmanDate: 2000-08-02 01:55:19
Subject: mac.c
Previous:From: Philip WarnerDate: 2000-08-01 23:12:02
Subject: Re: pg_dump & ownership (again)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group