Re: Anyone care about type "filename" ? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From The Hermit Hacker
Subject Re: Anyone care about type "filename" ?
Date
Msg-id Pine.BSF.4.21.0008012041290.555-100000@thelab.hub.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Anyone care about type "filename" ?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Tom Lane wrote:

> The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> > okay, reword ... what would have been the difference between that and
> > char(256)? :)  I'm just curious as to whether it had any checks that would
> > have validated it as being a filename or something like that, that's all
> 
> Actually, the input converter did have some code to expand "~username"
> paths.  But putting that in the input converter was broken by design;
> you don't want the home directory expanded in a path when it's stored
> into the database, you want to expand it when the path is used (what
> if the user's home dir has moved since you made the DB entry?)

Ah, okay, cool ... thanks :)  Just seemed like a weird type to define if
you don't do anything different then char(256) would have done ...



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Philip Warner
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump & ownership (again)
Next
From: Larry Rosenman
Date:
Subject: mac.c