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

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: Bug in libpq implentation and omission in documentation?
Date
Msg-id CABUevEwiLyAP0MeE8qsis1CcJWmJ2OvfiW+6qet0WCmzzbMKyg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Bug in libpq implentation and omission in documentation?  (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> 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.

+1 - and also a clear update to the documentation.

-- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jim Vanns
Date:
Subject: Re: Bug in libpq implentation and omission in documentation?
Next
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP fix proposal for bug #6123