Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes:
> Giles Lean wrote:
>> 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.
> We check for things like ".." other places, though we could roll that
> into the macro if we wanted. Because we are adding a new function, that
> might make sense.
Yeah. If we were to go with Greg's suggestion of inventing a separate
is_relative_to_cwd test function, I'd expect that to insist on no ".."
while it was at it.
That seems like a fairly clean approach in the abstract, but I agree
that somebody would have to look closely at each existing usage to be
sure it works out well.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
