Andrey Borodin <amborodin86@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 7:08 AM Nikolai <pgnickb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The patch attached simply throws an error when an overflow is
>> detected. However I'm not sure this is a reasonable approach for a
>> code path that could be very hot in some workloads.
> Given the extraordinary amount of overflow checks in the nearby code
> of timestamp.c, I'd say that this case should not be an exception.
Yeah, I don't think this would create a performance problem, at least not
if you're using a compiler that implements pg_sub_s64_overflow reasonably.
(And if you're not, and this bugs you, the answer is to get a better
compiler.)
> By chance did you look at all other nearby cases, is it the only place
> with overflow?
That was my immediate reaction as well.
regards, tom lane
