| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeevan Chalke <jeevan(dot)chalke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Postgres-Bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_get_functiondef() does not show LEAKPROOF for leakproof functions |
| Date: | 2015-05-28 12:40:35 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqT8RueHHDEHpbtqMxG8cEC4aogWNUNb9+aroLhQPX1bMg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Jeevan Chalke
<jeevan(dot)chalke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> If function is created with the LEAKPROOF option, then pg_get_functiondef()
> does not show that in the returned definition.
> Is it expected OR are we missing that option in pg_get_functiondef().
>
> However only superuser can define a leakproof function.
> Was this the reason we are not showing that in pg_get_functiondef() output?>
> I don't think we should hide this detail.
Agreed. I guess that it has been simply forgotten. pg_proc can be
easily queried, so functions marked as leakproof are easy to find out
in any case.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-05-28 12:43:45 | Re: BUG #13365: pg9.4.0 isn't support windows xp |
| Previous Message | Arne Scheffer | 2015-05-28 10:48:20 | Re: BUG #12769: SSL-Renegotiation failures |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-05-28 12:51:04 | Re: Re: [GENERAL] 9.4.1 -> 9.4.2 problem: could not access status of transaction 1 |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-05-28 12:09:13 | Memory leak with XLogFileCopy since de768844 (WAL file with .partial) |