Re: file_fdw vs relative paths

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Li Japin <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: file_fdw vs relative paths
Date: 2020-08-31 11:10:58
Message-ID: CABUevEySK9C7S3ovh4_CHgaQpEn=oC5v_FGD8u+NJOM=HN_v=A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 9:28 AM Li Japin <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote:

>
> On Aug 25, 2020, at 8:26 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Yes, I tested back to 9.5 too:
>
> CREATE EXTENSION file_fdw;
> CREATE SERVER pgconf FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER file_fdw;
> CREATE FOREIGN TABLE pgconf (line TEXT) SERVER pgconf OPTIONS ( filename
> 'postgresql.conf', format 'text', delimiter E'\x7f' );
> SELECT * FROM pgconf;
> # -----------------------------
> # PostgreSQL configuration file
> # -----------------------------
> #
> # This file consists of lines of the form:
> …
>
>
> The file_fdw extension was introduced by
> commit 7c5d0ae7078456bfeedb2103c45b9a32285c2631,
> and I tested it supports relative paths. This is a doc bug.
>
>
Well technically it can also have been a code bug but yes if so it is one
that has lived since day 1. But given that nobody has chimed in to say they
think that's what it is for a month, I think we'll conclude it's a docs
bug.

Bruce, I've applied and backpatched your docs patch for this.

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/>
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2020-08-31 11:16:05 Re: file_fdw vs relative paths
Previous Message vignesh C 2020-08-31 10:43:48 Re: Parallel copy