Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Problem with PQexecPrepared

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David Stanaway <david(at)stanaway(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org,"Jeroen T(dot) Vermeulen" <jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl>
Subject: Re: Problem with PQexecPrepared
Date: 2004-06-10 05:34:12
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-interfaces
David Stanaway <david(at)stanaway(dot)net> writes:
> On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 17:21, Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote:
>> Not that it would be a problem here, because the array itself is const
>> and so the function could never write its own pointer into it.  I
>> think it's one of those rare situations where a cast is justified.

> If the prototype had been for const char** I would not have needed to
> change anything, the API author I guess is being thorough.

The author was me, and I didn't think I was creating any problems by
const-ifying the declaration :-(.  Jerome, are you sure this isn't
a compiler glitch?  I really have a problem with the notion that a
library routine can over-constify its input declarations...

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-interfaces by date

Next:From: David StanawayDate: 2004-06-10 06:37:52
Subject: Re: Problem with PQexecPrepared
Previous:From: David StanawayDate: 2004-06-09 22:38:14
Subject: Re: Problem with PQexecPrepared

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group