Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3776.700.51.11.12\))
Subject: Re: oauth integer overflow
From: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOYmi+kKqSrU5c8D60rgSj6ybiNwsZkxgTJhef+w0-mRpw=m0A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 21:25:27 +0200
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
 PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F5CE6DB0-A198-4858-AEB4-4C1A6A49A63C@yesql.se>
References: <qtclihmrkq67ach3xjxyi4qcksstin5qxwsnkqefkmotxwh4g6@ae2bj6jvcmry>
 <B2FCB6A7-10C4-416D-BA22-240E9FCDCE18@yesql.se>
 <CAOYmi+n4U_g+k1Bfs2eavJdps0qQj3HFDa5i3V1c0m3CLYUWhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <BA41032F-217B-4BDE-9F16-4D237B63DA33@yesql.se>
 <CAOYmi+k6K6VKTZLPtQLHnoSSMRZfH_=x6bHRUC3zf1F9kjyb1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <fcaddr2zt4q7ee5mm7vctb723pcgfjpyo2hnhjhgae2nysobjf@epjk3wl4i2ck>
 <CAOYmi+mGZ5H+k_Y-ascgK7X9snAGdBUOuc=FZRxu6gnB_mjFFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <52EEC73C-5887-43F0-848B-DF515DCDFBBF@yesql.se>
 <CAOYmi+kKqSrU5c8D60rgSj6ybiNwsZkxgTJhef+w0-mRpw=m0A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/F5CE6DB0-A198-4858-AEB4-4C1A6A49A63C%40yesql.se>
Precedence: bulk

> On 5 Jun 2026, at 21:06, Jacob Champion =
<jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>=20
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 11:31=E2=80=AFAM Jacob Champion
> <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>=20
> I was preparing to commit this for beta1 last week, and I realized
> that I've changed my tune. With all the recent backports of overflow
> checks, I think I need to be reaching for them by default, especially
> in a non-performance-critical path.
>=20
> v2 rewrites that part with a checked multiplication, which removes any
> need for a static_assert complication.

I agree with this approach, +1 on this version.

> On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 4:18=E2=80=AFAM Daniel Gustafsson =
<daniel@yesql.se> wrote:
>> When teading "disabled timer" I interpret that as a timer which is 0 =
and has no
>> interval (which might be due to not being a native speaker), but what =
it
>> actually describes is an interval which (in practice) never ends.  =
Perhaps it
>> could be phrased more like "for most people is going to be equivalent =
to a
>> never ending interval".
>=20
> This has been completely rewritten now; see what you think.

LGTM.

--
Daniel Gustafsson