From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: David Stanaway <david@stanaway.net>
Cc: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org, "Jeroen T. Vermeulen" <jtv@xs4all.nl>
Subject: Re: Problem with PQexecPrepared
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 01:34:12 -0400
Message-ID: <20133.1086845652@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1086820694.10544.14.camel@dmxnocws13.dialmex.net>
References: <1086817452.10544.5.camel@dmxnocws13.dialmex.net>
<20040609222114.GI91662@xs4all.nl>
<1086820694.10544.14.camel@dmxnocws13.dialmex.net>
David Stanaway <david@stanaway.net> writes:
> On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 17:21, Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote:
>> Not that it would be a problem here, because the array itself is const
>> and so the function could never write its own pointer into it. I
>> think it's one of those rare situations where a cast is justified.
> If the prototype had been for const char** I would not have needed to
> change anything, the API author I guess is being thorough.
The author was me, and I didn't think I was creating any problems by
const-ifying the declaration :-(. Jerome, are you sure this isn't
a compiler glitch? I really have a problem with the notion that a
library routine can over-constify its input declarations...
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, david@stanaway.net, jtv@xs4all.nl
Subject: Re: Problem with PQexecPrepared
In-Reply-To: <20133.1086845652@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox