> protocol level bugs are language independent; even memory safe languages have issues. [...] This defect in particular occurs in the c# portion of the stack, n

> protocol level bugs are language independent; even memory safe languages have issues. [...] This defect in particular occurs in the c# portion of the stack, not in postgres. This could have occurred in rust if similar programming practices were used. But it couldn't have occurred in Python, for example, and Swift also (says Wikipedia) doesn't allow integer overflow by default. So it's possible for languages to solve this safety problem as well, and some languages are safer than others by default. C# apparently has a "checked" keyword [0] to enable overflow checking, which presumably would have prevented this as well. Java uses unsafe addition by default but, since version 8, has the "addExact" static method [1] which makes it inconvenient but at least possible to write safe code. [0] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/language-reference/statements/checked-and-unchecked https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/language-ref... [1] https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/19/docs/api/java.base/java/lang/Math.html#addExact(int,int) https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/19/docs/api/java.base...