On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 10:36:22AM -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> I think it *should* blow up. It doesn't because we're lacking assertions in
> GetBufferDescriptor(). But I don't think the assertions added in the patch are
> quite right.
>
> We can't trivially add the correct assertions, because somebody though it was
> a good idea to give GetBufferDescriptor() a uint32 parameter, which seems
> completely wrong to me.
This one is not as old as I expected: 3ac88fddd92c. You're right that
switching that to be signed would be a correct first step forward.
--
Michael