On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Thomas Dudziak wrote:
> Ok, thanks, I see. However, from what I read in the thread the
> question in the mail that you referenced, as to why
> PGResultSetMetadata does not extend ResultSetMetadata, and as a result
> the getTableName method is mapped onto getBaseTableName, is still
> valid IMO. Especially if the information seems to be readily
> available. Would you consider this change for an upcoming release ?
No the question about extension means that given a PGResultSetMetaData
object you cannot call the standard ResultSetMetaData methods. This is
solely a convenience issue. If you wanted to call both getColumnName and
getBaseColumnName you'd need to maintain two references (one to the
ResultSetMetaData object and another to the PGResultSetMetaData object).
If PGResultSetMetaData extended ResultSetMetaData you'd only need a
reference to the pg version. We have a separate pg specific method
because we believe that function is useful, but does not match the spec
for getTableName. Have you read the entire thread?
In response to
pgsql-jdbc by date
|Next:||From: Kris Jurka||Date: 2005-08-09 22:21:32|
|Subject: Re: 8.0 + JDBC3 Driver|
|Previous:||From: Dave Held||Date: 2005-08-09 22:04:55|
|Subject: 8.0 + JDBC3 Driver|