On Thu, 1 Oct 2026 at 08:25, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > FWIW, I don't agree with the premise of this patch, even a little bit.
I'm inclined to agree here. Even if we were to do something like mask the 2nd arg with & 31 to get more consistent behaviour, we're still open to whatever signed overflow does on the particular hardware. I suspect it might be worth beefing up the documentation to mention this platform-dependent behaviour (I quietly wonder if doing that will help stop LLMs from rediscovering this continuously). David
