3.2 KiB
id, name, status, depends_on, scope, risk, impact, level, tags
| id | name | status | depends_on | scope | risk | impact | level | tags | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pg-decide-stamp-arithmetic-side | Decide which side guards pg's server-side stamp arithmetic (review 004 item 5, decision) | pending | narrow | low | component | implementation |
|
Description
The decision that must precede the BIGINT-overflow fix, per
docs/reviews/004-pre-release-general-review.md §"Findings recorded,
not fixed" item 5: pg's claim, heartbeat, retry-reschedule, and
retention-sweep statements compute server-side sums over
consumer-supplied i64 values (queue.rs:386/912/1000/714,
lock.rs:91) — one row stamped with visibility_timeout_s = i64::MAX
(or retention i64::MIN) makes every claim/heartbeat UPDATE fail with
"bigint out of range", and the failure is sticky per row. The
client-side resolution is saturated (resolution.rs); the row-stamp
arithmetic is not.
Decide which side owns the guard:
- (a) Clamp/validate at the enqueue seam — consumer i64s bounded
at entry, matching
resolution.rs's client-side saturation posture and the sibling engines' stamp arithmetic (sqlite/mem saturate per review 004 inline fix 6 — the engine-uniformity argument). - (b)
LEAST/GREATEST-guard the server expressions — defense at the arithmetic site; no entry-point change, but the stored stamps are silently clamped server-side.
Contract-adjacent — this is why it's its own task. The choice changes which failures are reachable through the public surface, which touches ADR-023 §2's totality wording. Check the window state first: as of the decomposition (2026-10-11) no publish tag exists, so the class-1 window is presumed open — verify, and if open, land the decision with a dated ADR-023 §2-style annotation (the failure-set change is class-1-legal pre-publish, the review-004 inline fix 5 precedent). If the window has closed, raise with the user before pinning anything.
The decision must name the guard form precisely: the clamp domain, which sites it applies to (enqueue vs the stamp sites), and what the observable behavior of an extreme-stamped row becomes.
Acceptance Criteria
- The decision of record: which side owns the guard, with the ADR-023 §2 totality argument and the sibling-engine uniformity check written down
- The window state verified and recorded; a dated annotation landed if class-1, or user sign-off if post-publish
- The guard form is precise (clamp domain, sites, the
extreme-stamped row's observable semantics) — enough for
pg-fix-bigint-stamp-overflowto implement without re-deciding - The decision recorded where the family keeps such records (ADR annotation / task Notes + contract text if the wording needs it)
References
- docs/reviews/004-pre-release-general-review.md §"Findings recorded, not fixed" item 5 (the finding, the which-side question, the contract-adjacency)
- docs/architecture/decisions/023-fourth-review-round.md §2 (the totality wording the choice touches)
- alkstore-postgres/src/resolution.rs (the client-side saturation posture), queue.rs / lock.rs (the stamp sites)
Notes
To be filled by implementation agent
Summary
To be filled on completion