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

Re: JDBC, prepared queries, and partitioning

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com>
Cc: josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, Stephen Denne <Stephen(dot)Denne(at)datamail(dot)co(dot)nz>, Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>, PostgreSQL - JDBC <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: JDBC, prepared queries, and partitioning
Date: 2008-02-14 13:04:19
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-jdbc
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.

  Simon Riggs

In response to

pgsql-jdbc by date

Next:From: jamesDate: 2008-02-14 23:36:19
Subject: PSQLException: ResultSet not positioned properly
Previous:From: Oliver JowettDate: 2008-02-14 12:45:12
Subject: Re: SMALLINT vs short or... int?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group