> It's capable of throwing an error (see timestamp2timestamptz_opt_overflow).
Yes, It's capable of throwing an error(timestamp out of range) , but the message "timestamp out of range" is not sensitive information. Only from this function(timestamp_gt_timestamptz), can it be marked as leakproof?
------------------------------------------------------------------
发件人：Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
发送时间：2022年10月17日(星期一) 22:07
收件人：qiumingcheng <qiumingcheng@aliyun.com>
抄 送：Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>; Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>; pgsql-general <pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>; yuexingzhi <yuexingzhi@hotmail.com>
主 题：Re: 回复：回复：回复：A question about leakproof
"qiumingcheng" <qiumingcheng@aliyun.com> writes:
> 2. What's the reason about the function timestamp_gt_timestampz may cause data leakage? Can you explain how it causes data leakage?
It's capable of throwing an error (see
timestamp2timestamptz_opt_overflow). Now, maybe that's unreachable, or
maybe we could rerrange things to remove it. But there's still enough
code underneath the timezone conversion requirement that I'd be very
hesitant to apply a leakproof marking. In short: it might be leakproof
in practice, but we don't wish to offer a guarantee.
regards, tom lane