On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 08:19:05PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > 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.
I'm inclined to agree, FWIW. - Josh / eggyknap
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
