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

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: file_fdw vs relative paths
Date
Msg-id CABUevEyuf67Yu_r9gpDMs5MKifK7+-+pe=ZjKzya4JEn9kUk1w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: file_fdw vs relative paths  (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
Responses Re: file_fdw vs relative paths
List pgsql-hackers


On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 1:10 PM Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:


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.


Gah, and of course right after doing that, I remembered I wanted to get a second change in :) To solve the "who's this Josh" question, I suggest we also change the example to point to the data/log directory which is likely to exist in a lot more of the cases. I keep getting people who ask "who is josh" based on the /home/josh path. Not that it's that important, but... 

--
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: file_fdw vs relative paths
Next
From: torikoshia
Date:
Subject: Get memory contexts of an arbitrary backend process