>> My solution would be to use INT_MIN for all ports, which has the advantage
>> that the above problematic comparison can be converted to !=,
>> since no integer will be smaller than INT_MIN.
> I agree. When I was looking at this code this morning, I was wondering
> what INT_MIN was supposed to represent anyway, if NOSTART_ABSTIME is
> INT_MIN + 1. I think someone messed this up between 4.2 and Postgres95.
> Thomas, any objection to this plan?
I went ahead and committed this change, since Thomas hasn't weighed in
with an objection ...
regards, tom lane
