On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 11:00:41 +0000 Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2024-07-01 15:08 +0200, Yugo NAGATA wrote: > > I would like to propose to add a new field to psql's \dAo+ meta-command > > to show whether the underlying function of an operator is leak-proof. > > > > I agree that this is useful information to have, but why add it to > \dAo+ instead of \do+? Taking the example from the original thread, > when writing a query containing 'tsvector @@ tsquery', it's much more > obvious to use "\do+ @@" to check if it's leakproof, rather than > "\dAo+ gin". I added it to \dAo+ since the initial motivation was that it enables to check whether we can use an index scan for scanning a table which has RLS policy when the condition contains a certain operator. However, as you suggested, adding it to \do+ seems enough to know conditions using specified operators can use indexes. I'll fixed the patch to add leakproof info to \do+ results, but is it worth leaving this info in \dAo+ results, too? > Perhaps it would be useful to have this in \df+ output as well. Agreed. I'll add the info to \df+, too. > I notice that this patch spells "leakproof" with a hyphen. IMO > leakproof should not have a hyphen -- at least, that's how I naturally > spell it, and I think that's more common, and it matches the SQL > syntax. OK, I'll fix it to use "leakproof" without a hyphen. > We haven't been consistent about that in the docs and code comments so > far though, so I think we should make a decision, and then standardise > on whatever people decide. I am not a native English speaker, but if this is natural spelling in English, I wonder we can replace all of them to leakproof without a hyphen. Regards, Yugo Nagata -- Yugo Nagata <nag...@sraoss.co.jp>
