On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 at 13:10, Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> And the INT_MAX check wouldn't catch truncation anyways - it'd only
> catch integer _underflow_, but allocation size calculations pretty much
> as a rule never use subtractions, so I don't think this check was ever
> worth much to begin with.
It fixed a real security issue.
Enough said, and you're just making shit up to make excuses.
Also, you might want to start look at latency numbers in addition to
throughput. If your journal replay needs an *index* that is 2G in
size, you may have other issues.
Your journal size is insane, and your "artificial cap on performance"
had better come with numbers.
Why do you keep on being the person who creates all these pointless
arguments? Not just with me, btw.
Linus
