Re: proleakproof vs opr_sanity test

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: proleakproof vs opr_sanity test
Date: 2015-05-29 12:57:22
Message-ID: CAB7nPqQRX9D2csaNmO4ZGPPh4UxKYgra0TeZMT5_65jn=sGRaA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 12:09 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> So I think we ought to fix xideqint4 to be marked leakproof and then
> add this test. That would only be in HEAD though since it'd require
> an initdb. Any objections?

FWIW, this makes sense.

> Is there a reason to believe that a
> built-in function might be leakproof when invoked from one function
> OID but not another?

I can't think about one after pondering about that a bit...
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2015-05-29 13:45:40 Re: RFC: Remove contrib entirely
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2015-05-29 12:25:12 Re: fsync-pgdata-on-recovery tries to write to more files than previously