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 4A984D1B383 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 03:37:57 -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 52642-02 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 06:37:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from main.rgv.net (rgv.net [170.76.50.10]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D3B2D1B375 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 03:37:53 -0300 (ADT) Received: from huey.nolana (huey.stanaway.net [170.76.51.17]) by main.rgv.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFEB84F8CD; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 01:39:35 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [10.0.50.11] (unknown [10.0.50.11]) by huey.nolana (Postfix) with ESMTP id B90606126E2; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 01:36:39 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <20133.1086845652@sss.pgh.pa.us> References: <1086817452.10544.5.camel@dmxnocws13.dialmex.net> <20040609222114.GI91662@xs4all.nl> <1086820694.10544.14.camel@dmxnocws13.dialmex.net> <20133.1086845652@sss.pgh.pa.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v618) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org From: David Stanaway Subject: Re: Problem with PQexecPrepared Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 01:37:52 -0500 To: Tom Lane X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618) 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: 200406/25 X-Sequence-Number: 4953 On Jun 10, 2004, at 12:34 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > 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... Hi there, The library prototype is fine. My GCC is gcc (GCC) 3.3.3 (Debian 20040422). Do you have an example of PQexecParams or PQexecPrepared using non text parameters? -- David Stanaway