Re: [GENERAL] binding 64-bit integer

2007-04-20 Thread Tom Lane
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > After change the SQL clause to "SELECT * from mytable WHERE mykey=$1::int8", > the binding passed! If you had to insert an explicit cast, it means that "mykey" isn't int8, which makes one wonder why you are bothering. rega

Re: [GENERAL] binding 64-bit integer

2007-04-20 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
stgresql.org Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 8:41:22 PM Subject: Re: [GENERAL] binding 64-bit integer "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I wanted to bind a 64-bit integer, but it failed: > "ERROR: incorrect binary data format in bind > parameter 1". I

Re: [GENERAL] binding 64-bit integer

2007-04-19 Thread Tom Lane
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I wanted to bind a 64-bit integer, but it failed: > "ERROR: incorrect binary data format in bind > parameter 1". It sorta looks like you are trying to send that value to a parameter that the server doesn't think is int8. r

Re: [GENERAL] binding 64-bit integer

2007-04-19 Thread Martin Gainty
Flying- reading the source displays http://doxygen.postgresql.org/postgres_8c-source.html /* Trouble if it didn't eat the whole buffer */ if (!isNull && pbuf.cursor != pbuf.len) ereport(ERROR, (errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_BINARY_RE