Re: Now/current_date and proleakproof

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Rod Taylor <rod(dot)taylor(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Now/current_date and proleakproof
Date: 2018-11-17 21:01:49
Message-ID: 3130.1542488509@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Rod Taylor <rod(dot)taylor(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> So it's the timestamp_%_timestamptz operator functions that are missing the
> flag?

I think those are not marked leakproof because they aren't leakproof;
they can throw errors for some inputs, or at least the required
conversions invoke enough code that it's hard to be sure they can't.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Daniel Gustafsson 2018-11-17 21:15:08 Re: Support custom socket directory in pg_upgrade
Previous Message Rod Taylor 2018-11-17 20:56:01 Re: Now/current_date and proleakproof