Re: file_fdw vs relative paths - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: file_fdw vs relative paths
Date
Msg-id CABUevEySK9C7S3ovh4_CHgaQpEn=oC5v_FGD8u+NJOM=HN_v=A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: file_fdw vs relative paths  (Li Japin <japinli@hotmail.com>)
Responses Re: file_fdw vs relative paths  (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
List pgsql-hackers


On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 9:28 AM Li Japin <japinli@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Aug 25, 2020, at 8:26 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:

Yes, I tested back to 9.5 too:

CREATE EXTENSION file_fdw;
CREATE SERVER pgconf FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER file_fdw;
CREATE FOREIGN TABLE pgconf (line TEXT) SERVER pgconf OPTIONS ( filename
'postgresql.conf', format 'text', delimiter E'\x7f' );
SELECT * FROM pgconf;
 # -----------------------------
 # PostgreSQL configuration file
 # -----------------------------
 #
 # This file consists of lines of the form:

The file_fdw extension was introduced by commit 7c5d0ae7078456bfeedb2103c45b9a32285c2631,
and I tested it supports relative paths.  This is a doc bug.


Well technically it can also have been a code bug but yes if so it is one that has lived since day 1. But given that nobody has chimed in to say they think that's what it is for a month, I think we'll conclude it's a docs bug. 

Bruce, I've applied and backpatched your docs patch for this.

--

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: vignesh C
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallel copy
Next
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: file_fdw vs relative paths