Re: 回复:回复:回复:回复:A question about leakproof
| От | Tom Lane | 
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: 回复:回复:回复:回复:A question about leakproof | 
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 2336717.1666024059@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст  | 
		
| Ответ на | 回复:回复:回复:回复:A question about leakproof ("qiumingcheng" <qiumingcheng@aliyun.com>) | 
| Ответы | 
                	
            		回复:回复:回复:回复:回复:A question about leakproof
            		
            		 | 
		
| Список | pgsql-general | 
"qiumingcheng" <qiumingcheng@aliyun.com> writes:
> Yes, It's capable of throwing an error(timestamp out of range) , but the
> message "timestamp out of range" is not sensitive information.
Really?  Whether that's true at all is a matter of opinion.  There's
also the prospect that somebody could determine the value of a
supposedly-unreadable timestamp by seeing how big an interval could
be added to it without overflow.  Maybe that's infeasible because of
timestamp_pl_interval not being marked leakproof, but then we're
getting into precisely the sort of conditional-on-other-assumptions
reasoning that we don't want to indulge in.
> Only from this function(timestamp_gt_timestamptz), can it be marked as leakproof?
Project policy is that we will not mark a function as leakproof unless
it's evident from the text of the function that it can't throw errors.
I don't see a good argument for making a exception for this one.
            regards, tom lane
		
	В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: