Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: leakproof

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Jeff Janes" <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Don Baccus" <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: leakproof
Date: 2012-02-22 16:14:34
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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 LaneDate: 2012-02-22 16:19:13
Subject: WIP: proof of concept patch for fixing quantified regex backrefs
Previous:From: Jay LevittDate: 2012-02-22 16:10:38
Subject: Re: pg_test_timing tool for EXPLAIN ANALYZE overhead

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group