Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > According to what you just told me, the original coding is storing the
> > name in a "local namespace", which presumably means it won't conflict
> > anyway. Ergo, the existing coding is simply broken and there's nothing
> > we can do about it.
>
> Local namespace = Session local, not process local. So it would properly
> protect against two processes started in the same session. One session
> is, for example, an interactive login. But not if they were started by
> different users, since they'd be in different sessions.
But those different users would not have access to the same set of
files, so it wouldn't work anyway, right?
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.