X-Original-To: pgsql-interfaces-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF1C6D1B1A5 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 02:34:14 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 26139-10 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 05:34:14 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 174D3D1B188 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 02:34:12 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5A5YCcb020134; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 01:34:12 -0400 (EDT) To: David Stanaway Cc: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org, "Jeroen T. Vermeulen" Subject: Re: Problem with PQexecPrepared 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> Comments: In-reply-to David Stanaway message dated "Wed, 09 Jun 2004 17:38:14 -0500" Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 01:34:12 -0400 Message-ID: <20133.1086845652@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200406/24 X-Sequence-Number: 4952 David Stanaway 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