On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 at 06:50, Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Your version looks better to me than the original version, but I'm still
> -0.05 on changing this at all.
I was more +0.4. It does not seem worth the trouble of too much
discussion so, just to try and bring this to a close, instead of
adding a comment to explain why we needlessly check the range of the
INT8 sequence, I just pushed the patch that removes it and adds the 1
line comment to mention why it's not needed.
David