On 2014-06-03 10:24:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > I didn't reall look at the patch, but it very much looks to me like that > > query result could use the \a\t treatment that rules.sql and > > sanity_check.sql got. It's hard to see the actual difference > > before/after the patch. > > I'll patch that now, to reduce the likelihood of changes there causing > > conflicts for more people. > > 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. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
