On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 12:24:50PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-02-01 23:16:16 -0500, Noah Misch wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 01:13:20AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > > > I'm not sure what'd actually be a good upper limit. I'd be inclined to > > > even go to as high as a week or so. A lot of our settings have > > > upper/lower limits that aren't a good idea in general. > > > > In general, I favor having limits reflect fundamental system limitations > > rather than paternalism. Therefore, I would allow INT_MAX (68 years). > > I generally incree with that attitude - I'm disinclined to go just that > high though. Going close to INT_MAX means having to care about overflow > in trivial computations, in a scenario we're unlikely to ever > test. Sure, we can use a debugger to adjust time or accellerate time > progress, but that's all unrealistic if we're honest. So maybe go with > a year?
Okay. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
