Patch for bind message to clarify signedness of parameters and result column format codes
Hackorum builds and tests every patch posted to the lists, not only commitfest submissions. This is Hackorum's own CI rather than the PostgreSQL project's, and it is still under testing - please report anything that looks wrong.
You can run a PostgreSQL built from this patch straight from Docker, with no checkout and no build:
docker run --rm -p 5432:5432 ghcr.io/hackorum-dev/postgres-patch:t139911psql -h localhost -U postgresBuilt from patchset v3 (message #3), August 23, 2026 at 07:31 AM.
Every patchset is also pushed to a branch of our PostgreSQL fork, so you can check out the same tree CI built. Without a PostgreSQL checkout:
git clone --branch t139911_3 https://github.com/hackorum-dev/postgres.gitIn a checkout you already have, add the fork once:
git remote add hackorum https://github.com/hackorum-dev/postgres.gitthen, for this patchset and every later one:
git fetch hackorum t139911_3 && git checkout t139911_3Patchset v3 (message #3) is on t139911_3
Currently we don't say whether the number of parameters is signed or
unsigned. Same with results
See attached patch.
Regards,
Dave Cramer
Attachments:
0001-doc-clarify-unsigned-integer-fields-in-protocol-messages.patchapplication/octet-stream; name=0001-doc-clarify-unsigned-integer-fields-in-protocol-messages.patchDownload+29-24
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.
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 resultsInstead 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