Quoting Kyle VanderBeek <kylev(at)yaga(dot)com>:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 02:24:24PM +0100, Peter Mount wrote:
> > At 18:30 09/04/01 -0700, Kyle VanderBeek wrote:
> > >This is a new feature? Using indecies is "new"? I guess I really
> beg to
> > >differ. Seems like a bugfix to me (in the "workaround" category).
> > Yes they are. INT8 is not a feature/type yet supported by the driver,
> > it's "new".
> > Infact the jdbc driver supports no array's at this time (as PostgreSQL
> > SQL3 arrays are different beasts).
> > If it's worked in the past, then that was sheer luck.
> Alright man, you've got me confused. Are you saying that despite the
> existance of INT8 as a column type, and PreparedStatement.setLong(),
> these ought not be used? If so, there is a really big warning missing
> from the documentation!
Erm, int8 isn't long, but an array of 8 int's (unless it's changed).
> I guess I'm asking this: I've got an enterprise database runnign 7.0.3
> ready to go using INT8 primary keys and being accessed through my
> re-touched JDBC driver. Am I screwed? Is it going to break? If so, I
> need to fix this all very, very fast.
> "I hate every ape I see, from chimpan-A to chimpan-Z" -- Troy
Peter Mount peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk
PostgreSQL JDBC Driver: http://www.retep.org.uk/postgres/
RetepPDF PDF library for Java: http://www.retep.org.uk/pdf/
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Thomas Lockhart||Date: 2001-04-17 13:25:32|
|Subject: Re: No printable 7.1 docs?|
|Previous:||From: Theo Kramer||Date: 2001-04-17 12:27:31|
|Subject: Talk on Open Source vs Proprietry databases|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Peter T Mount||Date: 2001-04-17 13:27:33|
|Subject: Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack)|
|Previous:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2001-04-16 17:56:09|
|Subject: Re: Patch for PostgreSQL 7.0.3 to compile on Tru64 UNIX
v5.0A with Compaq C T6.4-212 (dtk)|