On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 02:24:24PM +0100, Peter Mount wrote:
> At 18:30 09/04/01 -0700, Kyle VanderBeek wrote:
> >This is a new feature? Using indecies is "new"? I guess I really beg to
> >differ. Seems like a bugfix to me (in the "workaround" category).
> Yes they are. INT8 is not a feature/type yet supported by the driver, hence
> it's "new".
> Infact the jdbc driver supports no array's at this time (as PostgreSQL &
> SQL3 arrays are different beasts).
> If it's worked in the past, then that was sheer luck.
Alright man, you've got me confused. Are you saying that despite the
existance of INT8 as a column type, and PreparedStatement.setLong(), that
these ought not be used? If so, there is a really big warning missing
from the documentation!
I guess I'm asking this: I've got an enterprise database runnign 7.0.3
ready to go using INT8 primary keys and being accessed through my
re-touched JDBC driver. Am I screwed? Is it going to break? If so, I
need to fix this all very, very fast.
"I hate every ape I see, from chimpan-A to chimpan-Z" -- Troy McClure
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2001-04-10 21:06:23|
|Subject: Re: "--tuning" compile and runtime option (?)|
|Previous:||From: Thomas Lockhart||Date: 2001-04-10 19:42:56|
|Subject: Re: Indexes not used in 7.1RC4: Bug?|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Kyle VanderBeek||Date: 2001-04-10 21:08:22|
|Subject: Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack)|
|Previous:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2001-04-10 16:42:12|
|Subject: Re: debian stylesheets|