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

Re: JDBC, prepared queries, and partitioning

From: Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, Stephen Denne <Stephen(dot)Denne(at)datamail(dot)co(dot)nz>, Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>, PostgreSQL - JDBC <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: JDBC, prepared queries, and partitioning
Date: 2008-02-14 12:22:05
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-jdbc
Simon Riggs wrote:

> Why not just fold in parameters if option is set and can continue to use
> normal V3 route, just with zero parameters? Any JDBC calls that want to
> inspect parameters can throw an exception when the option is set. So
> JDBC thinks there were parameters, yet Postgres server thinks there were
> no parameters.

Well, yes, that's essentially how our protocol-level abstraction works - 
the main driver deals in terms of abstracted Query and ParameterList 
objects, and the protocol layer maps those to something the server 
understands. This is how we support the v2 and v3 protocols in the same 
driver. I was suggesting a third protocol path ("v3simple" or something) 
that did pretty much what you described .. but I fear you are 
underestimating the work needed to implement it.

If you want to put together a patch, though, I'm happy to take a look at it.


In response to


pgsql-jdbc by date

Next:From: Oliver JowettDate: 2008-02-14 12:45:12
Subject: Re: SMALLINT vs short or... int?
Previous:From: Tomisław KityńskiDate: 2008-02-14 12:13:03
Subject: SMALLINT vs short or... int?

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