Tom Lane wrote: > 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".
Oh, OK. I know Magnus has a patch that he was working on and will send it out soon. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + None of us is going to be here forever. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
