On March 17, 2018 11:32:36 AM PDT, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: >> On the current branch just using the new overflow safe functions in >> int.h should work. But unless we are OK leaving this broken in the >back >> branches, or want to backport the functionality, that's probably not >> sufficient. > >Yeah ... I don't like either of the last two things, so probably we >should >go with the patch as I had it. Yours might perform a shade better on >compilers with the built-in, but it'll be a lot worse on those without.
I don't think performance is a prime driver here, or shouldn't be at least. Obviousness / grepability seem much more important. I'd vote for using my version in master, and yours in the back branches. I can do that, of you want. I'm OK with skipping the test for now. Andres -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
