| From: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com>, Christian Cryder <c(dot)s(dot)cryder(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres JDBC <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Timestamp Conversion Woes Redux |
| Date: | 2005-07-19 15:31:24 |
| Message-ID: | A3338300-ABD6-474D-AC3D-84A4E4546BE1@fastcrypt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
For that matter we could use a PGUnknown type as well.
Dave.
On 19-Jul-05, at 10:52 AM, Csaba Nagy wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> wasn't the whole thread. I agree with you that if we make setString
>> default to UNKNOWN, there had better be a way to say "by golly this
>> really is TEXT" for the corner cases. It'd be a good idea if it
>> wasn't
>> limited to TEXT, either, but could allow specification of any random
>> datatype.
>>
>
> This makes me think, isn't it possible to introduce a special type to
> say something like: setObject(..., Types.UNKNOWN), and map that to
> setting a string with type unknown ? In that case people could
> still use
> prepared statements with parameters of unknown type, it just have
> to be
> explicit. For me that would have been a much simpler "fixing the app".
>
> Cheers,
> Csaba.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Csaba Nagy | 2005-07-19 15:41:15 | Re: Timestamp Conversion Woes Redux |
| Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2005-07-19 15:22:09 | Re: Timestamp Conversion Woes Redux |