On 08.08.2012 17:35, Tom Lane wrote:
A runtime check for too many parameters seems appropriate. Assuming
that the error message it throws is well written, I don't think we need
to adjust the documentation. There are many limitations that are not
spelled out in the docs, and adding every one of
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> On 08.08.2012 12:36, Jim Vanns wrote:
>> 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 san
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:24 PM, 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 r
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 t
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_
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?
Naturally I have already m
Hey Jim,
2012/8/8 Jim Vanns
> Hello PG hackers. Yesterday I began diagnosing a peculiar bug in some
> production code that has been happily running for months. I finally got
> to the bottom of it despite the rather misleading error message. Anyway,
> within a section of code we are making a DELE
Hello PG hackers. Yesterday I began diagnosing a peculiar bug in some
production code that has been happily running for months. I finally got
to the bottom of it despite the rather misleading error message. Anyway,
within a section of code we are making a DELETE call to the database via
the libpq c
