| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | qiumingcheng <qiumingcheng(at)aliyun(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: A question about leakproof |
| Date: | 2022-10-17 01:54:46 |
| Message-ID: | 2067840.1665971686@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 09:15:20AM +0800, qiumingcheng wrote:
>> After testing, we don't find the difference between functions of
>> proleakproof=true and functions of proleakproof=false (the function is
>> described in pg_proc).
> Have you looked at
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/What%27s_new_in_PostgreSQL_9.2#Security_barriers_and_Leakproof?
Also: the fact that a built-in function is not marked leakproof
doesn't mean that it isn't leakproof. It could just mean that
we haven't looked at it closely, or that there's too much code
involved to have much confidence that it would stay leakproof.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | qiumingcheng | 2022-10-17 02:50:38 | 回复：A question about leakproof |
| Previous Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2022-10-17 01:40:20 | Re: A question about leakproof |