| From: | Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im> |
|---|---|
| To: | Postgres Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Patch: Code comments: why some text-handling functions are leakproof |
| Date: | 2022-01-11 07:07:22 |
| Message-ID: | CABwTF4Wjp3q=dv6wGgqmFxuE7ZJmas=R_BjJrQHnJwkHzZmd9g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Please see attached a small patch to document why some text-processing
functions are marked as leakproof, while some others are not.
This is more or less a verbatim copy of Tom's comment in email thread at
[1].
I could not find an appropriate spot to place these comments, so I placed
them on bttextcmp() function, The only other place that I could see we can
place these comments is in the file src/backend/optimizer/README, because
there is some consideration given to leakproof functions in optimizer docs.
But these comments seem quite out of place in optimizer docs.
Best regards,
--
Gurjeet Singh http://gurjeet.singh.im/
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| leakproof_comments.patch | application/octet-stream | 1.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-01-11 07:14:25 | Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take three - remastered set |
| Previous Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2022-01-11 06:25:02 | Re: Isn't wait_for_catchup slightly broken? |