| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(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 22:34:38 |
| Message-ID: | 10591.1275431678@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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".
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-06-01 22:38:05 | Re: is_absolute_path incorrect on Windows |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-06-01 22:19:49 | Re: is_absolute_path incorrect on Windows |