> It's capable of throwing an error (see timestamp2timestamptz_opt_overflow).
Yes, It's capable of throwing an error(timestamp out of range) , but the message "timestamp out of range" is not sensitive information. Only from this function(timestamp_gt_timestamptz), can it be marked as leakproof?
------------------------------------------------------------------
发件人：Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
发送时间：2022年10月17日(星期一) 22:07
收件人：qiumingcheng <qiumingcheng(at)aliyun(dot)com>
抄 送：Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>; Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>; pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>; yuexingzhi <yuexingzhi(at)hotmail(dot)com>
主 题：Re: 回复：回复：回复：A question about leakproof
"qiumingcheng" <qiumingcheng(at)aliyun(dot)com> writes:
> 2. What's the reason about the function timestamp_gt_timestampz may cause data leakage? Can you explain how it causes data leakage?
It's capable of throwing an error (see
timestamp2timestamptz_opt_overflow). Now, maybe that's unreachable, or
maybe we could rerrange things to remove it. But there's still enough
code underneath the timezone conversion requirement that I'd be very
hesitant to apply a leakproof marking. In short: it might be leakproof
in practice, but we don't wish to offer a guarantee.
regards, tom lane