Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack)

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  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