On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 12:49:33PM -0800, Mark Richardson wrote:
> I'm pretty sure the problem I found is related to this, but I found that ecpg
> doesn't process booleans correctly- this was in a old version of postgres (I
> think it was 7.4.2). I traced it down in the code, and there is a section
> that defines the values to be "yes" or "no", but then further processing
> looks for "true" or "false", so the end result is that a boolean is ALWAYS
> false, because the 2 filters don't match.
Is this a bug that you saw back then in 7 something, or a bug you still see?
> If you're interested in more detail, I have code fixes (they are at work so I'll send on Monday).
Please send them. I'm interested.
Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org
ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo/Skype: michaelmeskes, Jabber: meskes(at)jabber(dot)org
VfL Borussia! Forca Barca! Go SF 49ers! Use: Debian GNU/Linux, PostgreSQL
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Ross J. Reedstrom||Date: 2009-11-24 16:07:59|
|Subject: Re: SE-PgSQL patch review|
|Previous:||From: Emmanuel Cecchet||Date: 2009-11-24 15:08:33|
|Subject: Re: Partitioning option for COPY|
pgsql-interfaces by date
|Next:||From: Raimon Fernandez||Date: 2009-12-17 16:13:20|
|Subject: Extended Query using the Frontend/Backend Protocol 3.0|
|Previous:||From: Mark Richardson||Date: 2009-11-21 20:49:33|
|Subject: Re: ecpg & 8.3 -> 8.4 migration|