ID: 40417
Comment by: mgagne at generationphp dot net
Reported By: exaton at free dot fr
Status: Open
Bug Type: PDO related
Operating System: Windows XP Pro SP2
PHP Version: 5.2.1
New Comment:
Unfortunately for some people, Iliaa is right:
"You cannot use a named parameter marker of the same name twice in a
prepared statement."
However, even if it's was added to the documentation about a year ago
(Sun Jan 8 14:02:42 2006 UTC), the behavior changed between PHP 5.2.0
and PHP 5.2.1 and it should have been added to the changelog as well.
I didn't know when happened to my application until I saw this bug
report.
Previous Comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2007-03-02 07:25:23] mgagne at generationphp dot net
Hi,
I have the same bug using PHP 5.2.1. I had to downgrade to PHP 5.2.0
and it fixed the problem.
I'm using PDO::MYSQL. I have 2 bound variables in my request. All 2
have the same name. Since I'm only binding value once using
PDO::bindValue, the error is triggered without valid reason.
My query is similar to this one:
SELECT *
FROM posts
WHERE post_title LIKE :q OR
post_text LIKE :q
I'm binding value once like this:
$sth->bindValue(':q', "$q", PDO::PARAM_STR);
This means there is something wrong within the internal count.
Also for the records, issue does not seem to be related to any specific
PDO driver. (issue is present with PostGreSQL and MySQL driver)
Thanks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2007-03-01 15:30:09] exaton at free dot fr
@ xing : I had not seen that word from Wez, but indeed is does make
sense to add the check in principle -- the API should make sure that
enough tokens were bound (to enhance its service and avoid "silent"
bugs) and can also guarantee that not too many were bound (might as
well).
It's back to the problem with bindno, however... I'm not even sure of
the name of that variable. I think it would stand for "number of
bindings", e.g. the expected number of bound variables or values. I
believe that's how Ilia read it, and quite reasonably so. That meaning
is just not valid in the special (but probably not uncommon) case of
multiple named tokens (as opposed to question marks ?) with the same
name.
Just a shot in the dark : wouldn't a workable, albeit expensive,
solution be to create a little hash table here with the names of all
the named tokens ? It would not hold duplicates, by definition ; hence
named tokens with the same name would only be counted once. Therefore
zend_hash_num_elements(params) would just have to be compared to
zend_hash_num_elements(token_names). But of course question-mark
placeholders would have to be treated in a different way...
Anyway, I don't think that's anything the PHP developers won't have
thought about themselves. Just my 2 cents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2007-03-01 08:15:50] xing at mac dot com
I have to agree with exaton on this. This is an absolute "app-breaker"
change and MUST be noted in the change-log at the very least.
It is pure luck I found this change before my official upgrade to
5.2.1.
I really hope there there a solution to this.
On a blog, wez mentioned that this was a fix and the previous ability
to bind one to many placements was rather an bug. I however, strongly
disagree on a simple level that the pre-5.2.1 pdo binding just "made
sense". Why should php force developers to introduce more lines of code
that does nothing more when this can be take care of behind the scenes?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2007-02-27 13:00:47] exaton at free dot fr
Hi again, thanks for reopening this issue.
Sorry for being so snarky before, but I'd just received a little
dressing down from my boss because of having to add the workaround to
already-validated code at extremely short notice. Classic case of
pushing for an upgrade on the production server in the frenzy of the
moment.
I'll let you guys take care of this now. I've kept my test case around
so I'm available for further trials if I can be of any use.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2007-02-27 11:50:41] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is really annoying issue, which forces me to rewrite some
of the code I've done in the past. Perhaps the bindno
shouldn't be incremented if the named placeholder already
exists in the placeholders struct? Would it break something
else?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view
the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at
http://bugs.php.net/40417
--
Edit this bug report at http://bugs.php.net/?id=40417&edit=1
