Re: [BUGS] BUG #9652: inet types don't support min/max

Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2014-06-03 10:24:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Personally, I would wonder why the regression tests contain such a query
>> in the first place.  It seems like nothing but a major maintenance PITA.

> I haven't added it, but it seems appropriate in that specific case. The
> number of leakproof functions should be fairly small and every addition
> should be carefully reviewed... I am e.g. not sure that it's a good idea
> to declare network_smaller/greater as leakproof - but it's hard to catch
> that on the basic of pg_proc.h alone.

Meh.  I agree that new leakproof functions should be carefully reviewed,
but I have precisely zero faith that this regression test will contribute
to that.  It hasn't even got a comment saying why changes here should
receive any scrutiny; moreover, it's not in a file where changes would be
likely to excite suspicion.  (Probably it should be in opr_sanity, if
we're going to have such a thing at all.)
        regards, tom lane