Re: Post-release followup: pg_add_size_overflow()

From: Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Post-release followup: pg_add_size_overflow()
Date: 2025-11-19 17:45:46
Message-ID: CAOYmi+=x5w2_nwAUKfS_E5mFZt0Z1S-B-Rs-XfzexQf=twdCLw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 5:17 PM Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I just reviewed the patch. Overall looks solid to me.

Thanks for the review!

> Putting “…” inside a function body looks quite uncommon. I searched over the source tree and couldn't find other occurrence. As the comment has explained why omitting pg_neg_size_overflow, maybe just remove the entry #if 0 block, or just leave an empty function body.

My intent is just to document what the signature would have been. But
with Michael adding that it could confuse a casual grepper, I think
I'll switch to a standard comment, at minimum.

Thanks,
--Jacob

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jacob Champion 2025-11-19 17:46:22 Re: Post-release followup: pg_add_size_overflow()
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2025-11-19 17:33:43 Re: POC: enable logical decoding when wal_level = 'replica' without a server restart