From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Giles Lean <giles(dot)lean(at)pobox(dot)com> |
Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: is_absolute_path incorrect on Windows |
Date: | 2010-06-01 13:37:30 |
Message-ID: | 201006011337.o51DbUd25914@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Giles Lean wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>
> > is_relative_to_cwd()?
>
> ../../../../some/other/place/not/under/cwd
>
> 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.
> If my understanding is wrong (always possible!) and it only
> has to be on the same drive, then your name is probably better
> although it doesn't mention 'drive' ... hrm.
>
> is_on_current_drive()? (Yuck.)
> is_on_current_filesystem()? (Yuck, but at least more general.)
>
> I think we (or at least I) need some clarification from the
> original poster about what the code is checking for in detail.
I think you have to look at all the reference to is_absolute_path() in
the C code.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ None of us is going to be here forever. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-06-01 13:45:29 | Re: Trigger function in a multi-threaded environment behavior |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-06-01 13:16:13 | Re: [RFC] A tackle to the leaky VIEWs for RLS |