Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> Returning to the original point, I've come to the conclusion that
> "pure" isn't the right way to go. The trouble with "leakproof" is
> that it doesn't point to what it is that's not leaking, which is
> information rather than memory, as many might imagine (and I did)
> without further hints. I'm not sure any single English word would
> be as descriptive as I'd like.
I guess the risk is that people would confuse it with "discrete".
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2012-02-22 16:19:13|
|Subject: WIP: proof of concept patch for fixing quantified regex backrefs|
|Previous:||From: Jay Levitt||Date: 2012-02-22 16:10:38|
|Subject: Re: pg_test_timing tool for EXPLAIN ANALYZE overhead|