Re: Bug in libpq implentation and omission in documentation?

On Wed, 2012-08-08 at 14:24 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas 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.

While I agree that perhaps changing the function signature is a little
too intrusive considering it's been that way for a long long time (I
would wager) , I do think that yes, there should be a sanity check but
more importantly the documentation should explicitly state the
limitation or restriction despite the parameter type is a 4 byte
integer. Otherwise people like myself will assume that all 4 bytes can
be used ;)

Regards,

Jim

> -- 
>    Heikki Linnakangas
>    EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com
> 

-- 
Jim Vanns
Systems Programmer
Framestore