Re: [PDO] Fwd: Bug #50755 [Opn]: PDO DBLIB Fails with OOM

Hi Stanley,

Thanks for that. Again I have very limited time for PHP/PDO. I've 
reviewed your updated 5.3 patch and couldn't see anything wrong with it.


On 27/03/2010 02:15, Stanley Sufficool wrote:
> http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=50755&edit=2
>
> Patch revised:
> ------------------------------------------------
> 1. Reverted driver always registering as dblib.
>
> Question: Should the user really have to know the library the extension
> was compiled against? Seems like we should settle on a constant
> registration since you really can't mix and match.

It might be useful in case the libraries have slightly different 
behaviours. The fact that I've never used any of them doesn't help me to 
understand why this behaviour was implemented in the first place.

Anyway, this decision does not belong to this bug report.

> 2. Reverted whitespace modifications. Removed spurrious comments.
> Reverted DBSETOPT -->  dbsetopt.
>
> 3. Reverted SYB* -->  SQL* define deletions. These are required for
> compile against the depreciated MS DBLIB.
>
> 4. Removed automagic compute column naming (which was clobbering library
> memory). Just return what the server returns including empty strings.
> The user will need to alias in their sql query as "select 1+1 as
> oneplusone" instead of just "select 1+1" magically returning
> array('compute1'=>'2').
>
> Question: Who if anyone relies on this behavior? I don't see other
> drivers doing this.

I was under the impression that it was something added by your first 
patch. In any case the patch needs to be backwards compatible, otherwise 
the it can't go in PHP 5.3.


> Some unrelated/unmentioned "fixes"
> ------------------------------------------------
> Allow multiple rowsets with varying column definitions. This was
> implemented incorrectly.
> Include the recent update to SQLMONEY formatting.
>
> Tested against SQL Server 2008 Express, PHP-5.3 svn-296442, FreeTDS
> 0.64, Linux 2.6.30 - i686&  amd64

Are there any new tests that could be written to ensure that the 
extension still works as expected and/or to test the new functionality?



Cheers
-- 
Matteo Beccati

Development & Consulting - http://www.beccati.com/