Hi, I'm using libpq PQexecParams ability to send query parameters as binary data, more specific - a binary representation of an empty array.
I have the problem: the code sending empty binary array works on 8.3 and 8.4 but stopped working on postgres 9.0 beta2/3/4, it fails with '22003','integer out of range error'. Here is the test code: char *command="INSERT INTO test.arraytypes(nullarr) VALUES($1)"; // ndims hassnull typeid ((dim+lbound)*ndims) const int empty_array_length = 4 + 4 + 4 + (8*1); // constructing empty array representation: char * buf = (char *)malloc(empty_array_length); memset(buf,0,empty_array_length); char * out = buf; // ndims *((int*)out) = htonl(1); out+=4; // hassnull *((int*)out) = 0; out+=4; // typeid 'int4' *((int*)out) = htonl(23); out+=4; const Oid oids[] = {1007};// _int4 oid const int paramFormats[]={1}; const int lens[] = {empty_array_length}; const char * const * vals = {&buf}; PGresult* re = PQexecParams(conn, command, 1, oids, (const char *const * ) vals, lens, paramFormats, 1); char *err1=PQresultErrorMessage(re); // ERROR: integer out of range for 9.0 beta // sql creation code: //CREATE TABLE test.arraytypes( nullarr int[]) I've traced the error down to array_recv function, and found this overflow check to be offending. /src/backend/utils/adt/arrayfuncs.c: Line 1214 for (i = 0; i < ndim; i++) { int ub; dim[i] = pq_getmsgint(buf, 4); lBound[i] = pq_getmsgint(buf, 4); ub = lBound[i] + dim[i] - 1; /* overflow? */ if (lBound[i] > ub) ereport(ERROR, (errcode(ERRCODE_NUMERIC_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE), errmsg("integer out of range"))); } In the empty array case, the ndim==1, and dim[0]==0, so lBound[0] > ub[0] Seems that the overflow check was introduced fairly recently, here is the discussion of it: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-08/msg02073.php The array with dim[i] = 0 seems legitimate, since this situation is handled by the code below: if (nitems == 0) { /* Return empty array ... but not till we've validated element_type */ PG_RETURN_ARRAYTYPE_P(construct_empty_array(element_type)); } So, is it really a bug in 9.0? Or maybe the array representation rules changed somehow? Vladimir Shakhov | Developer www.alliedtesting.com -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs