Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> writes:
> I don't think this is a simple switch we should throw in a minor revision
> either. The real source of our problems is that for performance reasons
> we never issue a Describe Statement protocol message.
No, I don't think that's the issue; the part that I'm worried about is
> Finally there are a few cases where the server simply cannot resolve the
> provided type and bails out with an error message. If using the JDBC
> setXXX provided types, these work. Consider "SELECT ? IS NULL" or an
> overloaded function that cannot be resolved.
Sending UNKNOWN creates a risk that the server will barf because it
can't guess the right data type.
Now, if you are proposing to send a parameter marked UNKNOWN in exactly
the same cases where the previous driver release would have sent an
undecorated string literal, then I'm mostly OK with it --- the behavior
at least won't be a regression, because an undecorated string literal
is also taken as UNKNOWN to start with.
I remembered what it was that was nagging me about having seen this
before --- didn't we try using UNKNOWN to avoid having to choose between
timestamp with/without time zone, and didn't that idea crash and burn?
It'd be a good idea to go back and look at the details before thinking
of adopting UNKNOWN in a more general context.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-jdbc by date
|Next:||From: Kris Jurka||Date: 2005-11-08 19:12:45|
|Subject: Re: use of OID.Unknown |
|Previous:||From: Nicolaus.Bauman||Date: 2005-11-08 18:46:52|
|Subject: Re: use of OID.Unknown|