On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 11:31 AM Jacob Champion <[email protected]> wrote: > Attached. The static_assert for the millisecond calculation is the > only part I don't really like, but doing an overflow check on a > calculation that can't overflow int64 is even more verbose/wasteful.
I was preparing to commit this for beta1 last week, and I realized that I've changed my tune. With all the recent backports of overflow checks, I think I need to be reaching for them by default, especially in a non-performance-critical path. v2 rewrites that part with a checked multiplication, which removes any need for a static_assert complication. On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 4:18 AM Daniel Gustafsson <[email protected]> wrote: > When teading "disabled timer" I interpret that as a timer which is 0 and has > no > interval (which might be due to not being a native speaker), but what it > actually describes is an interval which (in practice) never ends. Perhaps it > could be phrased more like "for most people is going to be equivalent to a > never ending interval". This has been completely rewritten now; see what you think. Thanks! --Jacob
v2-0001-libpq-oauth-Avoid-overflow-for-very-large-interva.patch
Description: Binary data
