Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On Thursday 05 March 2009 18:04:42 Joshua Tolley wrote: >> As an aside, is access() adequately portable, ok to use within the >> backend, etc.? I just sort of took a shot in the dark. > > Using access() is usually not a good idea. In this case it would be better > to > check the return of the actual open() call for EPERM (or the equivalent for > fopen(), whatever is used).
That's what we do in the proper fix in HEAD. It requires an API change to backport it... Given that I think this is the first time we've heard of this issue, I'm thinking we should probably just not bother to backpatch it. //Magnus -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
