From: | Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Migowski <dmigowski(at)ikoffice(dot)de> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: TypeInfoCache |
Date: | 2007-12-20 10:43:42 |
Message-ID: | 476A475E.2020108@opencloud.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
Daniel Migowski wrote:
> Please give me any good reasons not to apply my patch, with would
> further improve standards conformance.
My main concern is that 'text' is a very common type to use in
PostgreSQL based designs, and that JDBC applications are more likely to
understand how to interpret a field that claims to be VARCHAR than one
that is LONGVARCHAR, given that LONGVARCHAR is a relatively strange type
and at best poorly defined.
i.e. - there are likely to be applications out there that depend on the
current behaviour - what are you going to do to support them?
This is the first time that mapping 'text' to LONGVARCHAR has been
suggested, as far as I can recall, so I think your "this breaks ORM
mappers and anything else that tries to understand the database schema"
claim is perhaps a bit of an exaggeration. If it does, where are all the
bug reports?
-O
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Oliver Jowett | 2007-12-20 10:48:31 | Re: TypeInfoCache |
Previous Message | Daniel Migowski | 2007-12-20 10:14:44 | Re: TypeInfoCache |