Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [JDBC] pg_locks.transaction field type

From: Joseph Shraibman <jks(at)selectacast(dot)net>
To: Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [JDBC] pg_locks.transaction field type
Date: 2005-08-18 03:48:52
Message-ID: 43040524.8060901@selectacast.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-jdbc

Oliver Jowett wrote:
> Joseph Shraibman wrote:
> 
>> Is it a jdbc bug that is returning the answer as 
>> org.postgresql.util.PGobject instead of some kind of Number?
> 
> 
> The column's type is 'xid' which the driver doesn't currently handle, so 
> it gets put into the "wrap it in PGobject" bucket.

Is xid a type of number?
> 
> I'm not sure what's changed between 7.4 & 8.0 -- did you also change 
> JDBC driver versions?

yes
> 
> Perhaps your server should convert instances of PGobject to their string 
> representations before returning them across RMI.

That's what I'll do.  Are there any other classes besides 
org.postgresql.util.PGobject that I have to worry about?

In response to

Responses

pgsql-jdbc by date

Next:From: Oliver JowettDate: 2005-08-18 03:55:43
Subject: Re: [JDBC] pg_locks.transaction field type
Previous:From: Oliver JowettDate: 2005-08-18 03:27:33
Subject: Re: [JDBC] pg_locks.transaction field type

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Oliver JowettDate: 2005-08-18 03:55:43
Subject: Re: [JDBC] pg_locks.transaction field type
Previous:From: Oliver JowettDate: 2005-08-18 03:27:33
Subject: Re: [JDBC] pg_locks.transaction field type

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group