From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Numeric is not leakproof |
Date: | 2019-11-28 15:21:40 |
Message-ID: | 32453.1574954500@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> writes:
> Numeric functions are not marked as leakproof in pg_proc.dat
Indeed. Nobody has done the analysis needed to decide that it'd be safe
to do so. For comparison, see the rather considerable discussion that
occurred before marking the text comparison functions leakproof.
> But it seems to me that it may be reasonable to mark ALL builtin
> functions (described in pg_proc.dat) as leekprof by default.
This proposal is risible. But if you actually need a counterexample,
here's one:
regression=# select 'abc' ~ '(foo';
ERROR: invalid regular expression: parentheses () not balanced
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-11-28 18:26:33 | Re: BUG #16140: View with INSERT, DO INSTEAD, and ON CONFLICT causes an error |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-11-28 13:09:22 | Re: BUG #16125: Crash of PostgreSQL's wal sender during logical replication |