Re: Potential inconsistency in handling of timestamps

Kris Jurka wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Oliver Jowett wrote:
>
>>> Null values should in theory get handled and returned well before
>>> TimestampUtils ever gets invoked (see
>>> AbstractJdbc2ResultSet.getTimestamp()). Can you supply a testcase
>>> demonstrating the problem?
>>
>> Actually, it looks like this was fixed in AbstractJdbc2ResultSet r1.95
>> (I was looking at CVS HEAD) but not on the 8.2 branch.
>>
>
> I don't follow. The commit you mention was unify the handling of the
> RS.wasNull flag, not changing the handling of null values. That should
> be caught in TimestampUtils.toTimestamp and friends.

Well, it did change getTimestamp() so it returns null sooner:

http://gborg.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/pgjdbc/org/postgresql/jdbc2/AbstractJdbc2ResultSet.java.diff?r1=1.94;r2=1.95;cvsroot=pgjdbc

@@ -419,7 +425,9 @@ public abstract class AbstractJdbc2Resul

public Timestamp getTimestamp(int i, java.util.Calendar cal)
throws SQLException
{
- this.checkResultSet(i);
+ checkResultSet(i);
+ if (wasNullFlag)
+ return null;

if (cal != null)
cal = (Calendar)cal.clone();

You're right though, null should be caught by
TimestampUtils.toTimestamp() too.

Back to looking for a testcase?

-O