Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2014-06-03 10:24:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Personally, I would wonder why the regression tests contain such a query
>> in the first place. It seems like nothing but a major maintenance PITA.
> I haven't added it, but it seems appropriate in that specific case. The
> number of leakproof functions should be fairly small and every addition
> should be carefully reviewed... I am e.g. not sure that it's a good idea
> to declare network_smaller/greater as leakproof - but it's hard to catch
> that on the basic of pg_proc.h alone.
Meh. I agree that new leakproof functions should be carefully reviewed,
but I have precisely zero faith that this regression test will contribute
to that. It hasn't even got a comment saying why changes here should
receive any scrutiny; moreover, it's not in a file where changes would be
likely to excite suspicion. (Probably it should be in opr_sanity, if
we're going to have such a thing at all.)
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
