Re: Remove useless int64 range checks on BIGINT sequence MINVALUE/MAXVALUE values

On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 16:48, Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 2:26 PM David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > > It seems strange to add a comment to explain why it's there. If we're
> > > going to the trouble of doing that, then we should just remove it and
> > > add a very small comment to mention why INT8 sequences don't need to
> > > be checked.
> >
> > Any thoughts on this, Greg?
> >
>
> The patch LGTM (it's the same as my original patch but with short comments).

Yeah, it's your patch with the comment reduced down to 2 lines. This
was to try and address Peter's concern that the comment is too large.
This seemed to put him off the patch. I also disagreed that it made
sense to remove 2 fairly harmless lines of code to replace them with
12 lines of comments.

What I was trying to get to here was something that was more
reasonable that might make sense to commit. I'm just not certain
where Peter stands on this now that the latest patch is a net zero
when it comes to adding lines. Peter?

David