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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
