On Jun 10, 2004, at 12:34 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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
>>> 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...
The library prototype is fine. My GCC is gcc (GCC) 3.3.3 (Debian
Do you have an example of PQexecParams or PQexecPrepared using non text
David Stanaway <david(at)stanaway(dot)net>
In response to
pgsql-interfaces by date
|Next:||From: Stephane Raimbault||Date: 2004-06-10 14:30:27|
|Subject: libpq 7.4 and binary cursor|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-06-10 05:34:12|
|Subject: Re: Problem with PQexecPrepared |