| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 13:58:37 |
| Message-ID: | efb1b9f6-99d6-43f4-8ef1-f9b046db2f80@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 8/2/24 09:48, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 6:03 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 4:45 PM Jacob Champion
>> <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> > Would it provide enough value for effort to explicitly mark leaky
>> > procedures as such? Maybe that could shrink the grey area enough to be
>> > protective?
>>
>> You mean like proleakproof = true/false/maybe?
>
> Yeah, exactly.
<dons flameproof suit>
Hmmm, and then have "leakproof_mode" = strict/lax/off where 'strict' is
current behavior, 'lax' allows the 'maybe's to get pushed down, and
'off' ignores the leakproof attribute entirely and pushes down anything
that merits being pushed?
</dons flameproof suit>
--
Joe Conway
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2024-08-02 14:11:10 | Re: Why is citext/regress failing on hamerkop? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-08-02 13:55:50 | Re: Remove obsolete RECHECK keyword completely |