Tom Lane wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:1692.1188826039@sss.pgh.pa.us" type="cite"><pre wrap="">Magnus Hagander <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"href="mailto:magnus@hagander.net"><magnus@hagander.net></a> writes:
</pre><blockquotetype="cite"><pre wrap="">On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 07:47:14AM +0100, Gregory Stark wrote:
</pre><blockquotetype="cite"><pre wrap="">Actually I think in Windows \ : and . are problems (not allowed more
than one dot in dos).</pre></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">\ and : are problems.
</pre></blockquote><prewrap="">Is : really a problem, given that the name in question will be appended
to a known directory's path? </pre></blockquote> The file name shouldn't have a ':' in it. Accessing a path with
multiple':' in it to open a file for reading should just fail normally. So yes, there should be no problem.<br /><br
/><blockquotecite="mid:1692.1188826039@sss.pgh.pa.us" type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">. is not a
problem.We don't support 16-bit windows anyway, and multiple
dots works fine on any system we support. </pre></blockquote><pre wrap="">I'm not convinced that . is issue-free. On
mostif not all versions of Unix,
you are allowed to open a directory as a file and read the filenames it
contains. While I don't say it'd be easy to manage that through
tsearch, there's at least a potential for discovering the filenames
present in . and .. --- how much do we care about that? </pre></blockquote> No more than discovering the file names in
anyother directory without using '.' or '..'? If it matters, check to ensure it is a regular file before opening it?<br
/><br/> Cheers,<br /> mark<br /><br /><pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Mark Mielke <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mark@mielke.cc"><mark@mielke.cc></a>
</pre>
