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

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