On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 11:14 AM Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote:
>
> > Although, and Joe may hate me for saying this, I think only the
> > non-constants should be redacted to keep some level of usability for
> > regular SQL errors. Maybe system errors like the above should be
> > removed from client messages in general.
>
> I started down this path and it looked fragile. I guess if there is
> generally enough support to think this might be viable I could open up
> that door again, but I don't want to waste time if the approach is
> really a non-starter as stated upthread :-/.
>
The only non-starter for Tom was weakening leakproof, right? Can we
keep the suppression, and work on strengthening leakproof as a
separate activity?
