On ons, 2012-02-22 at 10:56 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> The trouble with "leakproof" is that it
> doesn't point to what it is that's not leaking, which is information
> rather than memory, as many might imagine (and I did) without further
> hints. I'm not sure any single English word would be as descriptive as
> I'd like.
Well, we have RETURNS NULL ON NULL INPUT, so maybe DOES NOT LEAK
INFORMATION. ;-)
