| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | ken(at)kencorey(dot)com |
| Cc: | "pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Yikes! Bitten by line length? |
| Date: | 2001-01-18 01:26:14 |
| Message-ID: | 22385.979781174@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-novice |
Ken Corey <ken(at)kencorey(dot)com> writes:
> Drat! Thought this wa identified...but sure enough it's still causing troubles. Will report shortly.
Do you mean your previous description was incorrect, or that it is
correct but there are more squirrelies besides that one? If what you
said was correct as far as it went, then we do have a bug to fix,
I think. plpgsql should either work or generate a reasonable error
message when the actual parameter length exceeds the declared length
of the formal parameter.
Right offhand, I would have said that the declared length of a function
parameter would be completely ignored, but perhaps I am mistaken ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert D. Nelson | 2001-01-18 13:12:00 | RE: Postgres superuser & password on Red Hat; upgrade |
| Previous Message | Ken Corey | 2001-01-17 22:45:33 | Re: Yikes! Bitten by line length? |