From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
cc: gorcom2012@gmail.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #18993: [BUG] Unreachable code in pg_next_dst_boundary()
In-reply-to: <aH5OzOYbypP8QFKv@nathan>
References: <18993-fd78c35834306695@postgresql.org> <aH5OzOYbypP8QFKv@nathan>
Comments: In-reply-to Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
	message dated "Mon, 21 Jul 2025 09:29:32 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <439887.1753108706.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2025 10:38:26 -0400
Message-ID: <439888.1753108706@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/439888.1753108706%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 12:29:16PM +0000, PG Bug reporting form wrote:
>> This is unreachable because icycles is assigned directly from tcycles.

> I see the following upstream commit and discussion related to this:

Yeah.  The short answer here is that this code is meant to deal with
cases where time_t is wider than int[64].  Perhaps we're uninterested
in dealing with that case ... but we also don't want to deviate too
far from the upstream tzdb code.  So I'm inclined to leave it alone.
As the function's comment mentions,

 * A function result of -1 indicates failure (this case does not actually
 * occur in our current implementation).

so presumably both "return -1" lines are unreachable.

			regards, tom lane