On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 10:36:22AM -0400, Andres Freund wrote: > I think it *should* blow up. It doesn't because we're lacking assertions in > GetBufferDescriptor(). But I don't think the assertions added in the patch are > quite right. > > We can't trivially add the correct assertions, because somebody though it was > a good idea to give GetBufferDescriptor() a uint32 parameter, which seems > completely wrong to me.
This one is not as old as I expected: 3ac88fddd92c. You're right that switching that to be signed would be a correct first step forward. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
