Re: int4/int8 problem with jdbc was Re: "Fix" for INT8 literals

oliver, thanks for your reply.

the db in question is a 7.4 site in production. upgrading to another
version is not really what i'd like
to do. the explicit cast is problematic too, i'm using hibernate as my
orm. unless i missed something
in the docs, i can not add the cast to the config - but this is sth.
for the hibernate forums.

the problem is a special case where i have to load objects from the
table in question by the pk
(details would be quite long, but i can not change the table-structure
at this time). table size is
approx. 120 million rows and approx 2 million rows have a pk <
INT4_MAX. so i think my only
option is dropping the foreign keys, making the pks and all references
bigger than INT4_MAX
and recreate the fk.

jan

Am 02.06.2004 um 13:16 schrieb Oliver Jowett:

> Jan Heise wrote:
>> hi all,
>> i have some problems with my java app and int8 pks. i browsed the
>> mail-archives and found the
>> following mail thread *Re: "Fix" for INT8 literals being parsed as
>> INT4 disqualifying*
>> the last statement was:
>> That patch will be applied soon. But it will *not* be in the 7.4
>> stable branch. It will be fixed in head of tree. Since it will break
>> existing code I didn't want to add it to 7.4 in the middle of beta,
>> or now that 7.4 is RC1.
>> full text of the mail i'm referring to:
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-jdbc/2003-11/msg00057.php
>> has this been already adressed in the HEAD for the jdbc-driver?
>> because i loaded it from
>> gborg via cvs and the problem still persists.
>
> I don't believe the patch in question ever got applied.
>
> The 7.5 server doesn't suffer from the same "type mismatch prevents
> use of an index" problem, I believe. Or you could add an explicit
> ::int8 cast to your query.
>
> My v3 protocol changes should fix this against a 7.4 server, but
> they're some distance away from making it into the official driver at
> the moment.
>
> -O
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org