Re: Bug in libpq implentation and omission in documentation? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Heikki Linnakangas
Subject Re: Bug in libpq implentation and omission in documentation?
Date
Msg-id 50224C8B.4000707@enterprisedb.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Bug in libpq implentation and omission in documentation?  (Jim Vanns <james.vanns@framestore.com>)
Responses Re: Bug in libpq implentation and omission in documentation?
Re: Bug in libpq implentation and omission in documentation?
Re: Bug in libpq implentation and omission in documentation?
List 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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jim Vanns
Date:
Subject: Re: Bug in libpq implentation and omission in documentation?
Next
From: Jim Vanns
Date:
Subject: Re: Bug in libpq implentation and omission in documentation?