| From: | Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Pg Docs <pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Patch for bind message to clarify signedness of parameters and result column format codes |
| Date: | 2026-06-10 14:03:40 |
| Message-ID: | CADK3HHL9L1jV0=iCQhCQJh_-8xhrNZxvtigWO+Joa75tZDRGOQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 at 09:16, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
> On 09.06.26 13:51, Dave Cramer wrote:
> > Currently we don't say whether the number of parameters is signed or
> > unsigned. Same with results
>
> Instead of repeating this with every message, we should clarify this in
> the section "Message Data Types".
>
I've attached a new patch.
>
> I had always assumed that a type designation like Int16 or Int32 is
> signed, because of how they look like C types. But on the other hand,
> the POSIX functions to convert between host and network order only deal
> with unsigned types. So it's not obvious either way.
>
> It was surprising to me that some of them were unsigned
Dave
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0002-doc-clarify-signedness-of-integer-fields-in-protocol.patch | application/octet-stream | 6.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2026-06-11 14:28:53 | Re: Doubt on content under Routine Vacuuming section |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2026-06-10 13:16:28 | Re: Patch for bind message to clarify signedness of parameters and result column format codes |