Re: [HACKERS] BUG #9652: inet types don't support min/max

On 2014-06-03 10:37:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)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.

Well, I personally wouldn't have noticed that the OP's patch marked the
new functions as leakproof without that test. At least not while looking
at the patch. pg_proc.h is just too hard to read.

> 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.)

I don't object to moving it there.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services