On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 04:20:21PM +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> About v11, ISTM that the recursive function should check for symbolic links
> and possibly avoid them:
>
> sh> cd data/base
> sh> ln -s .. foo
>
> psql> SELECT * FROM pg_ls_dir_recurse('.');
> ERROR: could not stat file
> "./base/foo/base/foo/base/foo/base/foo/base/foo/base/foo/base/foo/base/foo/base/foo/base/foo/base/foo/base/foo/base/foo/base/foo/base/foo/base/foo/base/foo/base/foo/base/foo/base/foo/base/foo/base/foo/base/foo/base/foo/base/foo/base/foo/base/foo/base/foo/base/foo/base/foo/base/foo/base/foo/base/foo/base/foo/base/foo/base/foo/base/foo/base/foo/base/foo/base/foo/base/foo":
> Too many levels of symbolic links
> CONTEXT: SQL function "pg_ls_dir_recurse" statement 1
>
> This probably means using lstat instead of (in supplement to?) stat, and
> probably tell if something is a link, and if so not recurse in them.
Thanks for looking.
I think that opens up a can of worms. I don't want to go into the business of
re-implementing all of find(1) - I count ~128 flags (most of which take
arguments). You're referring to find -L vs find -P, and some people would want
one and some would want another. And don't forget about find -H...
pg_stat_file doesn't expose the file type (I guess because it's not portable?),
and I think it's outside the scope of this patch to change that. Maybe it
suggests that the pg_ls_dir_recurse patch should be excluded.
ISTM if someone wants to recursively list a directory, they should avoid
putting cycles there, or permission errors, or similar. Or they should write
their own C extension that borrows from pg_ls_dir_files but handles more
arguments.
--
Justin
