On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 11:00:41 +0000
Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2024-07-01 15:08 +0200, Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> > I would like to propose to add a new field to psql's \dAo+ meta-command
> > to show whether the underlying function of an operator is leak-proof.
> >
>
> I agree that this is useful information to have, but why add it to
> \dAo+ instead of \do+? Taking the example from the original thread,
> when writing a query containing 'tsvector @@ tsquery', it's much more
> obvious to use "\do+ @@" to check if it's leakproof, rather than
> "\dAo+ gin".
I added it to \dAo+ since the initial motivation was that it enables to
check whether we can use an index scan for scanning a table which has RLS
policy when the condition contains a certain operator. However, as you
suggested, adding it to \do+ seems enough to know conditions using specified
operators can use indexes.
I'll fixed the patch to add leakproof info to \do+ results, but is it worth
leaving this info in \dAo+ results, too?
> Perhaps it would be useful to have this in \df+ output as well.
Agreed. I'll add the info to \df+, too.
> I notice that this patch spells "leakproof" with a hyphen. IMO
> leakproof should not have a hyphen -- at least, that's how I naturally
> spell it, and I think that's more common, and it matches the SQL
> syntax.
OK, I'll fix it to use "leakproof" without a hyphen.
> We haven't been consistent about that in the docs and code comments so
> far though, so I think we should make a decision, and then standardise
> on whatever people decide.
I am not a native English speaker, but if this is natural spelling in
English, I wonder we can replace all of them to leakproof without a hyphen.
Regards,
Yugo Nagata
--
Yugo Nagata <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>
