Re: Regarding useObjects

On 9/27/23 13:39, Dave Cramer wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 27 Sept 2023 at 06:28, Achilleas Mantzios - cloud
> <a(dot)mantzios(at)cloud(dot)gatewaynet(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> On 9/27/23 13:17, Dave Cramer wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 27 Sept 2023 at 06:07, Achilleas Mantzios - cloud
>> <a(dot)mantzios(at)cloud(dot)gatewaynet(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 9/27/23 12:55, Vladimir Sitnikov wrote:
>>> > So the problem with using float instead of Float is that
>>> it is impossible to have a null float and arrays can have nulls.
>>>
>>> There's a feature request for retrieving primitive arrays:
>>> https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/issues/2939
>>
>> back in pre-postgresql-42* dayswe used to use -888 and
>> -888.888 to represent int NULL and float NULL respectively,
>> quite ...primitive but it worked. We should retain this old
>> mapping , but once all systems are up to date we will start
>> storing and reading NULLs in arrays as NULLs.
>>
>> Using that mapping is not something that we would entertain.
>>
>> If you are going to actually store NULL in the array, how would
>> that work with primitives ?
>
> We support our central system (master) plus 120 slave systems
> communicating via satellites (running very old versions of
> everything , linux, postgersql , java, jdbc, etc) using custom
> replication code (a hack of DBmirror) that we wrote back in 2003
> or so. Data come back and forth, so we have to support all those
> 120 archaic slaves while we upgrade and after we upgrade the
> central system.
>
> When everything is up to date, (which will be some years from
> now), then we will start actually storing NULLs inside arrays
> instead of -888 and -888.888 . BUT even then, we are not willing
> to update the actual old data (-888) to the new NULL version,
> because that would trigger a massive replication traffic from our
> central system to the slaves. Also updating all past / historic
> values would cause bloating, huge autovacuum activity, among other
> things on those remote slaves that run unmanned (in simple english
> : I am the only DBA for all 1 + 120 postgresql instances) . So we
> should support historic data as they are, until something bigger
> happens (like a vast update in our topology/logic/etc).
>
>
> So it sounds like this would work for you if someone implemented
> primitive arrays.

Yes or we could just upgrade JDBC driver in the central system, and
touch those ~ 200 source files to just work (not throw exception), but
still retaining the -888 representation.

But an implementation of primitive arrays for ints,longs,floats,doubles
would be better at this stage.

>
> Dave