On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 09:27:19AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> 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