Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.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
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
