Re: Mark unconditionally-safe implicit coercions as leakproof

On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 12:17 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I went through the system's built-in implicit coercions to see
> which ones are unconditionally successful.  These could all be
> marked leakproof, as per attached patch.  This came up in the
> context of the nearby discussion about CASE, but it seems like
> an independent improvement.  If you have a function f(int8)
> that is leakproof, you don't want it to effectively become
> non-leakproof when you apply it to an int4 or int2 column.
>
> One that I didn't mark leakproof is rtrim1(), which is the
> infrastructure for char(n) to text coercion.  It looks like it
> actually does qualify right now, but the code is long enough and
> complex enough that I think such a marking would be a bit unsafe.
>
> Any objections?

IMHO, this is a nice improvement.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company