Re: Bug in libpq implentation and omission in documentation?

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Jim Vanns <james(dot)vanns(at)framestore(dot)com>
Cc: Dmitriy Igrishin <dmitigr(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Bug in libpq implentation and omission in documentation?
Date: 2012-08-08 11:24:59
Message-ID: 50224C8B.4000707@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 08.08.2012 12:36, Jim Vanns wrote:
> Ah ha. Yes, you're correct. It does mention here that an Int16 is used
> to specify the number of parameter format codes, values etc.
>
> I suggest then that the documentation is updated to reflect this? Anf
> again, perhaps the 'int' for nParams should be an int16_t or short?

I don't think we should change the function signature for this, but I
think a sanity check for "nParams < 32768" in libpq would be in order.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Vanns 2012-08-08 11:31:09 Re: Bug in libpq implentation and omission in documentation?
Previous Message Jim Vanns 2012-08-08 09:36:21 Re: Bug in libpq implentation and omission in documentation?