Re: type unknown - how important is it?

Shachar Shemesh wrote:

> Dave Cramer wrote:
>
>> Shachar,
>>
>> I think with type oid 705 (unknown) it's safe to treat it as text.
>> Certainly better than punting.
>
>
> Question is what DBTYPE to report it as. Options are DBTYPE_WSTR
> (UTF-16 string, which means the input string must be a valid UTF-8
> string), DBTYPE_STR (just dump it as I get it, and hope that client
> doesn't barf on the UTF-8 encoding), DBTYPE_BYTES (it's an array of
> bytes, just let the client figure out what to do with it. No promises
> on my part).
>
> I don't know type 705 well enough to decide which would work best. If
> it's guaranteed to be a validly encoded text string, then I'll just
> put it in as DBTYPE_WSTR, and get it done with.

I think it's safe to assume it will be encoded properly. Attempting to
convert it to a DBTYPE_WSTR makes more sense to me. Of course I reserve
the right to be wrong.

>
>> On another note are you aware of any issues with transactions?
>> Specifically with using the dated autocommit mode ?
>
>
> I'm not sure what dated autocommit is. What are the issues you are
> seeing?

Pre-7.4 servers used set autocommit on/off and that was the error they
referred to, however after asking them to get me a test case I haven't
heard back
9 times out of 10 this means that while creating their test case they
found the problem.

>
>> Dave
>
>
> Shachar
>

--
Dave Cramer
http://www.postgresintl.com
519 939 0336
ICQ#14675561