From: | Kyle VanderBeek <kylev(at)yaga(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Mount <peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk> |
Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack) |
Date: | 2001-04-10 20:39:16 |
Message-ID: | 20010410133916.M30314@yaga.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 02:24:24PM +0100, Peter Mount wrote:
> At 18:30 09/04/01 -0700, Kyle VanderBeek wrote:
> >This is a new feature? Using indecies is "new"? I guess I really beg to
> >differ. Seems like a bugfix to me (in the "workaround" category).
>
> Yes they are. INT8 is not a feature/type yet supported by the driver, hence
> it's "new".
>
> Infact the jdbc driver supports no array's at this time (as PostgreSQL &
> SQL3 arrays are different beasts).
>
> If it's worked in the past, then that was sheer luck.
Alright man, you've got me confused. Are you saying that despite the
existance of INT8 as a column type, and PreparedStatement.setLong(), that
these ought not be used? If so, there is a really big warning missing
from the documentation!
I guess I'm asking this: I've got an enterprise database runnign 7.0.3
ready to go using INT8 primary keys and being accessed through my
re-touched JDBC driver. Am I screwed? Is it going to break? If so, I
need to fix this all very, very fast.
--
Kyle.
"I hate every ape I see, from chimpan-A to chimpan-Z" -- Troy McClure
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-04-10 21:06:23 | Re: "--tuning" compile and runtime option (?) |
Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2001-04-10 19:42:56 | Re: Indexes not used in 7.1RC4: Bug? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kyle VanderBeek | 2001-04-10 21:08:22 | Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack) |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-04-10 16:42:12 | Re: debian stylesheets |