Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes:
> Sorry for going on a bit of a tangent, but why is enum_eq not marked
> leakproof when its code looks like this?
Perhaps it could be, but I'm not sure how useful that is if we don't
mark the remaining enum comparison functions leakproof.
There might be a genuine hazard if something thinks it can substitute
use of enum_cmp for enum_eq, as indeed would happen in e.g. mergejoin.
regards, tom lane
