Re: relative_path() seems overly complicated and buggy

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > There's at least one bug in path.c's relative_path(): it will think
> > "/foo/a/b" is equal to "/foo/ab" because it skips directory separators
> > independently in the two strings.  The code is sufficiently complex that
> > I have little faith in it not having any other bugs, either.
> > 
> > I believe that it's unnecessary for relative_path to be so tense
> > about trying to implement platform-weirdness-aware comparison of paths.
> > It is not called on arbitrary paths, but only on the compiled-in
> > paths that were generated by configure.  Therefore it is reasonable
> > to assume that the common prefix we are trying to identify is spelled
> > exactly the same in both paths.
> > 
> > What I'd like to do is simplify it to just check for exact equality
> > up through the last directory separator in bin_path.  Any objections?
> 
> If you can simplify it, feel free.   I found that code much more complex
> than I liked but couldn't simplify it.  Originally I thought that would
> be used in more generic places but that hasn't happened.

Let me try to clean it up first by using canonicalize_path() and
comparing the result.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073