回复：回复：回复：回复：回复：A question about leakproof

------------------------------------------------------------------

发件人：Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

发送时间：2022年10月18日(星期二) 00:27

收件人：qiumingcheng <qiumingcheng@aliyun.com>

抄　送：Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>; Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>; pgsql-general <pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>; yuexingzhi <yuexingzhi@hotmail.com>

主　题：Re: 回复：回复：回复：回复：A question about leakproof

"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