On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 10:13:41AM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 09:32:07PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
> > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 08:58:32AM +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2008-05-17 at 09:07 -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
> > >
> > > > I've been using sqlite3 dbd for some time now. I find that the function
> > > > apr_dbd_get_row,
> > > >
> > > > http://apr.apache.org/docs/apr-util/trunk/group___a_p_r___util___d_b_d.html#gd4cdc5f4e8981b93f5a467a8c8a768f1
> > > > is 1 based. That is, 1 is the first row returned from a query. However,
> > > > I just started using postgresql, and I find that apr_dbd_get_row is 0
> > > > based. That is, 0 is the first row returned from the query.
> > >
> > > This should now be fixed in both the trunk and 1.3.x branch.
> > >
> > > We really _do_ appreciate your testing and suggestions!
> >
> > I can confirm that the latest 1.3.x snapshot on linux, for both sqlite3
> > and postgresql use a 1 based row index. I removed my hack, and things
> > work great. I'm going to test windows now, could take some time.
> > (perhaps get results tomorrow).
>
> OK, I have confirmed 1 bug. If you pass '0' to apr_dbd_get_row, with
> postgresql as the driver, the function returns 0, instead of -1 as it
> should. My unit tests happen to test the cases that should fail, that's
> how I caught this.
With a little more research, I noticed that this is simply an if on an
uninitialized variable.
230| if (row == NULL) {
231| row = apr_palloc(pool, sizeof(apr_dbd_row_t));
232| *rowp = row;
233| row->res = res;
234| if ( sequential ) {
235| row->n = 0;
236| }
237| else {
238| if (rownum > 0) {
239| row->n = --rownum;
240| }
241| }
242| }
243| else {
244| if ( sequential ) {
245| ++row->n;
246| }
247| else {
248| if (rownum > 0) {
249| row->n = --rownum;
250| }
251| }
252| }
253|
254+---> if (res->random) {
255| if (row->n >= res->ntuples) {
256| *rowp = NULL;
257| apr_pool_cleanup_run(pool, res->res, clear_result);
258| res->res = NULL;
259| return -1;
260| }
261| }
The execution is, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 238, 254, 255. On line, 255
row->n is checked, however, it was never initialized.
Hope this helps.
Bob Rossi
