On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 at 11:43, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
> > My thoughts are that we likely should make this code more robust,
> > despite the bug not being related to a broken data type. I'm only just
> > over the fence on that one though. Any thoughts?
>
> Strong +1, but please s/unable to/could not/, per message style
> guidelines.
Thanks for the review. I've now pushed the adjusted patch.
David
