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

Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack)

From: Peter T Mount <peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk>
To: lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org, Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
Cc: Kyle VanderBeek <kylev(at)yaga(dot)com>, Peter Mount <peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack)
Date: 2001-04-17 13:27:33
Message-ID: 987514053.3adc44c5f27ab@webmail.retep.org.uk (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Quoting Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>:

> > > >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!
> 
> Ah, it just dawned on me what might be happening: Peter, I'm guessing
> that you are thinking of "INT48" or some such, the pseudo-integer array
> type. Kyle is referring to the "int8" 8 byte integer type.

Ah, that would explain it. However int8 (as in 8 byte int) has not been 
implemented AFAIK (which is why I've said it's "new"). Until now, I've taken 
int8 to be the one that used to be used (probably still is) in system tables 
etc.

> > 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.
> 
> btw, it might be better to use a syntax like
> 
>   ... where col = '1234';
> 
> or
> 
>  ... where col = int8 '1234';
> 
> If the former works, then that is a bit more generic that slapping a
> "::int8" onto the constant field.
> 
> I'd imagine that this could also be coded into the app; if so that may
> be where it belongs since then the driver does not have to massage the
> queries as much and it will be easier for the *driver* to stay
> compatible with applications.

I agree.

Peter

-- 
Peter Mount peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk
PostgreSQL JDBC Driver: http://www.retep.org.uk/postgres/
RetepPDF PDF library for Java: http://www.retep.org.uk/pdf/

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Thomas LockhartDate: 2001-04-17 13:30:57
Subject: Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack)
Previous:From: Thomas LockhartDate: 2001-04-17 13:25:32
Subject: Re: No printable 7.1 docs?

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Thomas LockhartDate: 2001-04-17 13:30:57
Subject: Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack)
Previous:From: Peter T MountDate: 2001-04-17 13:11:54
Subject: Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack)

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