Re: DatabaseMetaData.getTables()

Jason,

Thanks, this won't quite work in the new code due to the test for server
version 7.2, but will suffice for my current work.

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Davies [mailto:jason(at)netspade(dot)com]
Sent: October 29, 2001 2:45 PM
To: Dave Cramer
Cc: pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [JDBC] DatabaseMetaData.getTables()

Hi,

Here is a diff that fixes ResultSet.getBytes() so that it returns a
byte[] array but preserves the functionality for other objects.

I also noticed that in Java 1.4, DatabaseMetaData.getTables() returns 10
columns instead of the 5 in Java 1.3. Is this considered JDBC 3?

Jason

On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 10:56:30AM -0500, Dave Cramer wrote:
> Well I think we can restore the orignal functionality of getBytes so
> that it returns a byte array for other objects As long as we preserve
> the functionality for bytea types, and LargeObjects
>
> Dave
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason Davies [mailto:jason(at)netspade(dot)com]
> Sent: October 28, 2001 8:34 AM
> To: Dave Cramer
> Cc: pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [JDBC] DatabaseMetaData.getTables()
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 07:14:42AM -0500, Dave Cramer wrote:
> > It appears the getBytes was previously being used to return a byte
> > array of any arbitrary column.
> >
> > Fixes for blobs seem to have broken this. The question is as Jason
> > pointed out which do we fix.
> >
> > It doesn't seem unreasonable to be able to return a byte array for
> > any
>
> > arbitray column. On the other hand is this the intended use?
>
> This is what the documentation says:
>
> public byte[] getBytes(int columnIndex)
> throws SQLException
>
> Retrieves the value of the designated column in the current
> row
> of this ResultSet object as a byte array in the Java
> programming language. The bytes represent the raw values
> returned by the driver.
>
> It seems to imply that it _should_ return a byte array for any
> arbitary column. But as usual, it's up to us to decide. I think it's
> reasonable, since we are working with byte arrays in the code anyway.
>
> --
> Jason Davies
>
> jason(at)netspade(dot)com
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

--
Jason Davies

jason(at)netspade(dot)com