Thread: handle a ECPG_bytea typo
Hi, hackers The source looks like: case ECPGt_bytea: { struct ECPGgeneric_varchar *variable = (struct ECPGgeneric_varchar *) (var->value); ...... } I think the developer intend to use struct ECPGgeneric_bytea instead of struct ECPGgeneric_varchar Is this thoughts right? I have wrote a patch to fix this typo
Attachment
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 1:35 PM Wang, Shenhao <wangsh.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: > > Hi, hackers > > The source looks like: > > case ECPGt_bytea: > { > struct ECPGgeneric_varchar *variable = > (struct ECPGgeneric_varchar *) (var->value); > > ...... > } > > I think the developer intend to use struct ECPGgeneric_bytea instead of struct ECPGgeneric_varchar > > Is this thoughts right? > > I have wrote a patch to fix this typo I felt the changes look correct. The reason it might be working earlier is because the structure members are the same for both the data structures ECPGgeneric_bytea & ECPGgeneric_varchar. Regards, Vignesh EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 07:22:15AM +0530, vignesh C wrote: > I felt the changes look correct. The reason it might be working > earlier is because the structure members are the same for both the > data structures ECPGgeneric_bytea & ECPGgeneric_varchar. ECPGset_noind_null() and ECPGis_noind_null() in misc.c show that ECPGgeneric_bytea is attached to ECPGt_bytea. The two structures may be the same now, but if a bug fix or a code change involves a change in the structure definition we could run into problems. So let's fix and back-patch this change. I am not spotting other areas impacted, and I'll try to take care at the beginning of next week. -- Michael
Attachment
On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 06:17:42PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > ECPGset_noind_null() and ECPGis_noind_null() in misc.c show that > ECPGgeneric_bytea is attached to ECPGt_bytea. The two structures may > be the same now, but if a bug fix or a code change involves a change > in the structure definition we could run into problems. So let's fix > and back-patch this change. I am not spotting other areas impacted, > and I'll try to take care at the beginning of next week. Okay, fixed as e971357. The issue came from 050710b, so this fix was only needed in 12~. -- Michael