On Jun 10, 2004, at 12:34 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Stanaway <david@stanaway.net> writes:
>> On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 17:21, Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote:
>>> Not that it would be a problem here, because the array itself is
>>> const
>>> and so the function could never write its own pointer into it. I
>>> think it's one of those rare situations where a cast is justified.
>
>> If the prototype had been for const char** I would not have needed to
>> change anything, the API author I guess is being thorough.
>
> The author was me, and I didn't think I was creating any problems by
> const-ifying the declaration :-(. Jerome, are you sure this isn't
> a compiler glitch? I really have a problem with the notion that a
> library routine can over-constify its input declarations...
Hi there,
The library prototype is fine. My GCC is gcc (GCC) 3.3.3 (Debian
20040422).
Do you have an example of PQexecParams or PQexecPrepared using non text
parameters?
--
David Stanaway <david@stanaway.net>