| From: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: can we mark upper/lower/textlike functions leakproof? |
| Date: | 2024-08-02 18:18:16 |
| Message-ID: | CAOYmi+=n9ASNdHuC4ok+VUkUmAxwZqh_SdWGfojzw0n3iVh3eA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 10:40 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> My belief is that nearly everything in unsafe. We ship with very
> little marked leakproof right now, and that might be too conservative,
> but probably not by much.
Then to me, that seems like the best-case scenario for a "maybe"
classification. I'm still not sold on the idea of automatically
treating all "maybes" as leakproof (personally I'd prefer that users
surgically opt in), but if the pool is small...
Thanks,
--Jacob
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2024-08-02 18:45:20 | Re: Official devcontainer config |
| Previous Message | Jacob Champion | 2024-08-02 17:51:59 | Re: [PoC] Federated Authn/z with OAUTHBEARER |