Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> 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?
Depends on what permissions you set on the directory, obviously....
Default ones depend on windows version and where in the filesystem they go.
//Magnus