Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Yeah. If we were to go with Greg's suggestion of inventing a separate > is_relative_to_cwd test function, I'd expect that to insist on no ".." > while it was at it.
So it's now two problems, and I think this is my final comment: 1. is_relative_to_cwd() I continue to think is a bad name for something concerned about ".." (plus on Windows not having a drive letter other than the current one); the "normal" meaning of "relative path" is merely "not absolute" 2. if this proposed new function is to replace some uses of is_absolute_path() then I'm afraid I'd not picked up on that (as Bruce did) and have no opinion on whether it's a good idea or not, and am not qualified to be the one doing the code investigation (not enough knowledge of the code, it's beta time, and I'm frantically short of time just now as well, sorry) Giles -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
