| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Sloppy thinking about leakproof properties of opclass co-members |
| Date: | 2014-09-27 13:52:57 |
| Message-ID: | 31551.1411825977@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Rather than (or perhaps as well as) marking all these leakproof,
> perhaps we should teach contain_leaky_functions() to automatically
> treat any no-arg function as leakproof, so that we allow user-defined
> functions too. Taking that one step further, perhaps what it should
> really be looking for is Vars in the argument list of a leaky
> function, i.e., contain_leaked_vars() rather than
> contain_leaky_functions().
+1, but that's a totally independent question from what I'm on about
at the moment.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-09-27 14:12:03 | Re: Last Commitfest patches waiting review |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-09-27 13:33:23 | Re: WITH CHECK and Column-Level Privileges |