Hi, On 2026-04-23 11:31:34 -0700, Jacob Champion wrote: > On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 11:17 AM Daniel Gustafsson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Cool. I have one written up and can share it for comparison, if you'd > > > like, but it's fairly verbose and I wonder if there's a better way to > > > do it. > > > > Well, if you're already done then please do share it, and we'll use that as > > a > > starting point. > > 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.
How about instead making sure that actx->authz.interval never gets big enough to have any chance of overflowing during either the += 5 or the * 1000? It's clearly ok to error out well before that... Greetings, Andres Freund
