On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 01:36:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> There might be a genuine hazard if something thinks it can substitute
> use of enum_cmp for enum_eq, as indeed would happen in e.g. mergejoin.
Hm. Wouldn't that be a mergejoin bug? I guess I'm not sure how to
reconcile the leakproof criteria in the documentation with the idea that
we can't mark a suite of functions as leakproof if any individual one isn't
leakproof.
--
nathan