On Wed, 20 May 2026 at 18:21, Austin Bonander <[email protected]> wrote:
> I appreciate the follow-up, Dave. > > I hope this lands as-is, but for context here is the old thread I found > that suggested that the full document should be audited and disambiguated > for signed/unsigned: > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20120901160523.GD2969%40momjian.us > > Given the additional effort required, I can understand why this was left > unresolved for so long. > > On Wed, May 20, 2026, 18:12 Dave Cramer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> While talking to Austin he noted that the docs for the number of >> parameters is actually an unsigned integer. >> >> This patch corrects that. >> >> See >> >> 1. Parameter format codes count (line 4323) — read at postgres.c:1725 >> 2. Parameter values count (line 4348) — read at postgres.c:1734 >> 3. Result-column format codes count (line 4396) — read at >> postgres.c:2017 >> >> Dave Cramer >> > Using Claude I have created another patch which calls out all signed/unsigned see attached
0001-doc-clarify-unsigned-integer-fields-in-protocol-messages.patch
Description: Binary data
