On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 8:09 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote:
> 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.

Sounds good to me, too.

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to