Thread

1. Patch for bind message to clarify signedness of parameters and result column format codes

   Dave Cramer <davecramer@gmail.com> — 2026-06-09T11:51:54Z

   Currently we don't say whether the number of parameters is signed or
   unsigned. Same with results
   
   See attached patch.
   
   Regards,
   
   Dave Cramer
   

2. Re: Patch for bind message to clarify signedness of parameters and result column format codes

   Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> — 2026-06-10T13:16:28Z

   On 09.06.26 13:51, Dave Cramer wrote:
   > Currently we don't say whether the number of parameters is signed or 
   > unsigned. Same with results
   
   Instead of repeating this with every message, we should clarify this in 
   the section "Message Data Types".
   
   I had always assumed that a type designation like Int16 or Int32 is 
   signed, because of how they look like C types.  But on the other hand, 
   the POSIX functions to convert between host and network order only deal 
   with unsigned types.  So it's not obvious either way.
   
   
   
   
   

3. Re: Patch for bind message to clarify signedness of parameters and result column format codes

   Dave Cramer <davecramer@gmail.com> — 2026-06-10T14:03:40Z

   On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 at 09:16, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
   
   > On 09.06.26 13:51, Dave Cramer wrote:
   > > Currently we don't say whether the number of parameters is signed or
   > > unsigned. Same with results
   >
   > Instead of repeating this with every message, we should clarify this in
   > the section "Message Data Types".
   >
   I've attached a new patch.
   
   >
   > I had always assumed that a type designation like Int16 or Int32 is
   > signed, because of how they look like C types.  But on the other hand,
   > the POSIX functions to convert between host and network order only deal
   > with unsigned types.  So it's not obvious either way.
   >
   > It was surprising to me that some of them were unsigned
   
   Dave