On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 11:14 AM Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> wrote: > > > Although, and Joe may hate me for saying this, I think only the > > non-constants should be redacted to keep some level of usability for > > regular SQL errors. Maybe system errors like the above should be > > removed from client messages in general. > > I started down this path and it looked fragile. I guess if there is > generally enough support to think this might be viable I could open up > that door again, but I don't want to waste time if the approach is > really a non-starter as stated upthread :-/. >
The only non-starter for Tom was weakening leakproof, right? Can we keep the suppression, and work on strengthening leakproof as a separate activity?
