David Rowley <[email protected]> writes:
> On Sun, 6 Sept 2026 at 05:01, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
>> * In the avg_accum functions, we can argue about how likely it
>> is that we'd reach overflow of the "sum" fields, but it is completely
>> insane to expend cycles and code complexity to check for overflow of
>> the "count" fields. If you can reach 2^63 by repeated addition of 1
>> within the lifetime of a PG database, then we have got far worse
>> problems, eg with WAL LSN overflow.
> I thought the same thing and wondered where that came from. On looking
> at int8inc(), I saw there's a similar check, which seems equally
> unlikely to hit, so I didn't mention it.
int8inc doesn't really have a basis to suppose that it's starting
from count zero, does it? It's a SQL-accessible function defined
as "add one".
regards, tom lane
