Received: from thor.candleweb.no (thor.candleweb.no [195.139.160.194])
	by mail.postgresql.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f0IDso052529
	for <pgsql-patches@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 18 Jan 2001 08:54:50 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from gunnar@candleweb.no)
Received: (from gunnar@localhost) by thor.candleweb.no (8.10.0/8.10.0/on4)
	id <f0IDnNV10931>; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:49:23 +0100 (MET)
To: Richard Bullington-McGuire <rbulling@microstate.com>
Cc: pgsql-patches@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Fixes and enhancements to JDBC driver (take 2)
References: 
 <Pine.LNX.4.10.10101171425190.26916-200000@polymorphic.microstate.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: Gunnar R|nning <gunnar@candleweb.no>
Date: 18 Jan 2001 14:49:23 +0100
In-Reply-To: Richard Bullington-McGuire's message of "Wed,
	17 Jan 2001 14:32:47 -0500 (EST)"
Message-ID: <x6bst5dl7g.fsf@thor.candleweb.no>
Lines: 18
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.65/Emacs 19.34
X-Archive-Number: 200101/56
X-Sequence-Number: 213

Richard Bullington-McGuire <rbulling@microstate.com> writes:

> * A serious off-by-one error existed in both of the BytePoolDim classes in
> the org.postgresql.PG_Stream class. On a request for a byte pool for the
> maximum size, the old code would generate an
> ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException. I fixed this by increasing the size of
> the array by one more than the maximum buffer size, and altering the
> supporting methods to initialize and clean up the expanded array.

This BytePoolDim code got other problems as well. I posted another
implementation of the same pooling idea back in October, but it never got
in to replace the current buggy code. As I wrote in pgsql-general earlier
today, I will look into creating a new patch with another pooling
implementation that should work a lot better. 

regards, 

	Gunnar