Simon Riggs wrote:
> Why not just fold in parameters if option is set and can continue to use
> normal V3 route, just with zero parameters? Any JDBC calls that want to
> inspect parameters can throw an exception when the option is set. So
> JDBC thinks there were parameters, yet Postgres server thinks there were
> no parameters.
Well, yes, that's essentially how our protocol-level abstraction works -
the main driver deals in terms of abstracted Query and ParameterList
objects, and the protocol layer maps those to something the server
understands. This is how we support the v2 and v3 protocols in the same
driver. I was suggesting a third protocol path ("v3simple" or something)
that did pretty much what you described .. but I fear you are
underestimating the work needed to implement it.
If you want to put together a patch, though, I'm happy to take a look at it.
In response to
pgsql-jdbc by date
|Next:||From: Oliver Jowett||Date: 2008-02-14 12:45:12|
|Subject: Re: SMALLINT vs short or... int?|
|Previous:||From: Tomisław Kityński||Date: 2008-02-14 12:13:03|
|Subject: SMALLINT vs short or... int?|