On 3/6/19 1:38 PM, Jeremy Schneider wrote: > On 3/5/19 14:14, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> This patch is tiny, seems perfectly reasonable, and has plenty of >> support. I'm going to commit it shortly unless there are last minute >> objections. > +1 >
done.
Now that this is done, the default value is only 5x below the hard-coded maximum of 10,000.
This seems a bit odd, and not very future-proof. Especially since the hard-coded maximum appears to have no logic to it anyway, at least none that is documented. Is it just mindless nannyism?
Any reason not to increase by at least a factor of 10, but preferably the largest value that does not cause computational problems (which I think would be INT_MAX)?
