| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, List <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: use of OID.Unknown |
| Date: | 2005-11-08 20:32:57 |
| Message-ID: | 8440.1131481977@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
[ resending from proper address ]
Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It'd be a good idea to go back and look at the details before thinking
>> of adopting UNKNOWN in a more general context.
> No, actually we went with this solution simply because we had no other
> options. This may work fine for text data, but how could we possibly
> implement sending in binary format?
That one's simple --- you don't. Anything you have down as UNKNOWN,
send as text. You have the option per-parameter in Bind, remember.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Cramer | 2005-11-08 22:57:20 | Re: use of OID.Unknown |
| Previous Message | Kris Jurka | 2005-11-08 19:12:45 | Re: use of OID.Unknown |