| From: | Dmitry Tkach <dmitry(at)openratings(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Darin Ohashi <DOhashi(at)maplesoft(dot)com>, 'Oliver Jowett' <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com>, Kim Ho <kho(at)redhat(dot)com>, Barry Lind <blind(at)xythos(dot)com>, pgsql-jdbc-list <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dave Cramer <Dave(at)micro-automation(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: IN clauses via setObject(Collection) [Was: Re: Prepare |
| Date: | 2003-07-21 19:45:23 |
| Message-ID: | 3F1C42D3.2070105@openratings.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
Fernando Nasser wrote:
> Darin Ohashi wrote:
>
>>> There is no technical reason why sql prepare cannot support "IN ?"
>>> If it is not supported by the backend at the moment should not
>>> affect the general decision of whether or not having such a feature
>>> is useful to have in the jdbc driver or not.
>>>
>
> Unfortunately it does. How can we justify a feature that only works
> when we are simulating prepared statements and fails when we are using
> the real PREPARED statements as provided by the server?
It should not *fail* of course.
The driver should take care of it. If the backend does not support
PREPARE/EXECUTE with sets as parameters, the driver should know about
that, and handle it as a special case
Dima
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fernando Nasser | 2003-07-21 19:58:36 | Re: IN clauses via setObject(Collection) [Was: Re: Prepare |
| Previous Message | Fernando Nasser | 2003-07-21 19:39:17 | Re: IN clauses via setObject(Collection) [Was: Re: Prepare |