On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 02:57:16AM +0000, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> > 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!
> Ah, it just dawned on me what might be happening: Peter, I'm guessing
> that you are thinking of "INT48" or some such, the pseudo-integer array
> type. Kyle is referring to the "int8" 8 byte integer type.
> > 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.
> btw, it might be better to use a syntax like
> ... where col = '1234';
> ... where col = int8 '1234';
> If the former works, then that is a bit more generic that slapping a
> "::int8" onto the constant field.
It seems like a wash to me; either way gets the desired result. Tacking
on ::int8 was the quickest. It also seems neater than this:
set(parameterIndex, ("int8 '" + new Long(x)).toString() + "'");
> I'd imagine that this could also be coded into the app; if so that may
> be where it belongs since then the driver does not have to massage the
> queries as much and it will be easier for the *driver* to stay
> compatible with applications.
This seems to be the wrong idea to me. The idea is that JDBC allows you
to be a little bit "backend agnostic". It'd be pretty disappointing if
this wasn't true for even the base types. Application programmers should
just call setLong() they're dealing with an 8-byte (Long or long) integer.
It'd be a shame to have a PostgreSQL-specific call to setString("int8 '" +
x.toString() + "'") littering your code. That seems to fly in the face of
everything that JDBC/DBI/ODBC (etc) are about.
"I hate every ape I see, from chimpan-A to chimpan-Z" -- Troy McClure
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Oliver Elphick||Date: 2001-04-11 20:55:46|
|Subject: Re: RPM upgrade caveats going from a beta version to RC |
|Previous:||From: Lamar Owen||Date: 2001-04-11 20:30:02|
|Subject: Re: RPM upgrade caveats going from a beta version to RC|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Patrick Welche||Date: 2001-04-12 16:15:52|
|Subject: Re: Call for platforms|
|Previous:||From: Thomas Lockhart||Date: 2001-04-11 02:57:16|
|Subject: Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack)|