From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | "Ludek Finstrle" <luf(at)pzkagis(dot)cz> |
Cc: | <pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Some changes |
Date: | 2005-12-02 17:24:51 |
Message-ID: | E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E4E7E617@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-odbc |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ludek Finstrle [mailto:luf(at)pzkagis(dot)cz]
> Sent: 02 December 2005 17:14
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [ODBC] Some changes
>
> > > Only comment in patch is little bit strenge.
>
> I'm sorry. I post only second part of my reviewing the patch.
>
> > Anyhoo, please let me know if you think it's good to apply
> when you've
> > taken a look at it - I'd appreciate the feedback on this one!
>
> It looks good to me except the comment. SQLFreeStmt do the freeing
> bind params same way as you implement in SQLCancel. This is better
> way.
If you look above my extra couple of lines, the code goes out of it's
way /not/ to use SQLFreeStmt when there are data_at_exec parameters. I'm
not entirely sure why, but someone obviously was! As it happens, I did
try modifying the code (by removing the data_at_exec check), however it
actually didn't clear the params; I continued to see the same crash.
> I try create first development snapshot yesterday. I didn't
> announce it.
> Do you agree I add this patch to the snapshot and re-release it
> with announcement here? So more people can test it.
By all means, please do.
Regards, Dave.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ludek Finstrle | 2005-12-02 17:29:11 | Re: Application crash after error - please help |
Previous Message | Andrus | 2005-12-02 17:24:21 | Re: Application crash after error - please help |