Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2017-12-22 11:00:54 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I do not think it is reasonable for these functions to not set the
>> output variable at all in the overflow case; it is not their job
>> to opine on whether the caller may use the result.
> I don't agree. Please note that that the function's documentation
> explicitly says "The content of *result is implementation defined in
> case of overflow.".
I will not accept an implementation that spews compiler warnings
all over the place, which is what this one is doing. Please fix that,
or else I will.
regards, tom lane
