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.
By chance did you look at all other nearby cases, is it the only place
with overflow? (I took a look too, but haven't found anything
suspicious)
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
