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

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

From: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
To: Kyle VanderBeek <kylev(at)yaga(dot)com>, 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: 2001-04-11 02:57:16
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
> > >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!

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.

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.

                   - Thomas

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew McMillanDate: 2001-04-11 03:02:46
Subject: Re: "--tuning" compile and runtime option (?)
Previous:From: Thomas LockhartDate: 2001-04-11 02:34:01
Subject: Re: Speaking of Indexing... (Text indexing)

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Kyle VanderBeekDate: 2001-04-11 20:46:44
Subject: Re: Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack)
Previous:From: Kyle VanderBeekDate: 2001-04-10 21:08:22
Subject: Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack)

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