Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.191]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 886319F93C9 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2007 10:34:36 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 67258-01 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2007 10:34:26 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from svr2.hagander.net (svr2.hagander.net [88.198.128.226]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 309849F9DBE for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2007 10:34:27 -0300 (ADT) Received: by svr2.hagander.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A7FE1DCC6C9; Mon, 3 Sep 2007 15:34:23 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 15:34:23 +0200 From: Magnus Hagander To: Tom Lane Cc: Gregory Stark , Oleg Bartunov , Pavel Stehule , PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: tsearch filenames unlikes special symbols and numbers Message-ID: <20070903133423.GI21833@svr2.hagander.net> References: <162867790709021328i7771aa9jfe79268bccbf123d@mail.gmail.com> <18259.1188773171@sss.pgh.pa.us> <87y7foir7t.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com> <19257.1188777110@sss.pgh.pa.us> <87tzqci6tp.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com> <20070903075609.GD21833@svr2.hagander.net> <1692.1188826039@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1692.1188826039@sss.pgh.pa.us> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200709/83 X-Sequence-Number: 107235 On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 09:27:19AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander writes: > > On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 07:47:14AM +0100, Gregory Stark wrote: > >> Actually I think in Windows \ : and . are problems (not allowed more > >> than one dot in dos). > > > \ and : are problems. > > Is : really a problem, given that the name in question will be appended > to a known directory's path? Yes. It won't work - the API calls will reject it. > > . is not a problem. We don't support 16-bit windows anyway, and multiple > > dots works fine on any system we support. > > I'm not convinced that . is issue-free. On most if not all versions of Unix, > you are allowed to open a directory as a file and read the filenames it > contains. While I don't say it'd be easy to manage that through > tsearch, there's at least a potential for discovering the filenames > present in . and .. --- how much do we care about that? I just meant that it's not a problem on Win32 to have a file with multiple dots in the name. There can certainly be *other* reasons for it. I don't really see the need to have an extra dot in the filename in this particular case, so I'd certainly be fine with restricting this one a lot more. //Magnus