| From: | Giles Lean <giles(dot)lean(at)pobox(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | 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 04:35:50 |
| Message-ID: | 20100601043550.8103.qmail@sapphire.netherstone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> is_relative_to_cwd()?
../../../../some/other/place/not/under/cwd
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.
If my understanding is wrong (always possible!) and it only
has to be on the same drive, then your name is probably better
although it doesn't mention 'drive' ... hrm.
is_on_current_drive()? (Yuck.)
is_on_current_filesystem()? (Yuck, but at least more general.)
I think we (or at least I) need some clarification from the
original poster about what the code is checking for in detail.
Cheers,
Giles
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-06-01 04:40:56 | Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-06-01 03:51:00 | Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature |