On Sun, Oct 15, 2023 at 06:47:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Another possibly interesting factoid: it appears that before
> 97957fdba, we had zero regression test coverage of timetz_zone ---
> and we still have none of timetz_izone, which contains essentially
> the same code. So if there is a problem here, whether it's ours or
> the compiler's, it's not hard to see why we didn't notice.
Right. This one is just a lucky, or say unlucky find. I didn't
notice that this path was entirely missing coverage, planting an
assertion in the middle of timetz_zone() passes check-world.
--
Michael