Re: oauth integer overflow

> On 5 Jun 2026, at 21:06, Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 11:31 AM Jacob Champion
> <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> Attached. The static_assert for the millisecond calculation is the
>> only part I don't really like, but doing an overflow check on a
>> calculation that can't overflow int64 is even more verbose/wasteful.
>
> I was preparing to commit this for beta1 last week, and I realized
> that I've changed my tune. With all the recent backports of overflow
> checks, I think I need to be reaching for them by default, especially
> in a non-performance-critical path.
>
> v2 rewrites that part with a checked multiplication, which removes any
> need for a static_assert complication.

I agree with this approach, +1 on this version.

> On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 4:18 AM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
>> When teading "disabled timer" I interpret that as a timer which is 0 and has no
>> interval (which might be due to not being a native speaker), but what it
>> actually describes is an interval which (in practice) never ends. Perhaps it
>> could be phrased more like "for most people is going to be equivalent to a
>> never ending interval".
>
> This has been completely rewritten now; see what you think.

LGTM.

--
Daniel Gustafsson