On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 12:24:50PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-02-01 23:16:16 -0500, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 01:13:20AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > I'm not sure what'd actually be a good upper limit. I'd be inclined to
> > > even go to as high as a week or so. A lot of our settings have
> > > upper/lower limits that aren't a good idea in general.
> >
> > In general, I favor having limits reflect fundamental system limitations
> > rather than paternalism. Therefore, I would allow INT_MAX (68 years).
>
> I generally incree with that attitude - I'm disinclined to go just that
> high though. Going close to INT_MAX means having to care about overflow
> in trivial computations, in a scenario we're unlikely to ever
> test. Sure, we can use a debugger to adjust time or accellerate time
> progress, but that's all unrealistic if we're honest. So maybe go with
> a year?
Okay.
