On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 01:22 +1300, Oliver Jowett wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > Why not just fold in parameters if option is set and can continue to use
> > normal V3 route, just with zero parameters? Any JDBC calls that want to
> > inspect parameters can throw an exception when the option is set. So
> > JDBC thinks there were parameters, yet Postgres server thinks there were
> > no parameters.
> Well, yes, that's essentially how our protocol-level abstraction works -
> the main driver deals in terms of abstracted Query and ParameterList
> objects, and the protocol layer maps those to something the server
> understands. This is how we support the v2 and v3 protocols in the same
> driver. I was suggesting a third protocol path ("v3simple" or something)
> that did pretty much what you described .. but I fear you are
> underestimating the work needed to implement it.
OK, I'll spend the time on providing server-side facilities in the next
release. That way we won't need to do the driver side work at all.
In response to
pgsql-jdbc by date
|Next:||From: james||Date: 2008-02-14 23:36:19|
|Subject: PSQLException: ResultSet not positioned properly|
|Previous:||From: Oliver Jowett||Date: 2008-02-14 12:45:12|
|Subject: Re: SMALLINT vs short or... int?|