Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@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 <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ None of us is going to be here forever. +
