Re: [GENERAL] JDBC +CIDR (fwd)

From: Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>
To: Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] JDBC +CIDR (fwd)
Date: 2004-10-21 22:42:17
Message-ID: Pine.BSO.4.56.0410211732420.7477@leary.csoft.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-jdbc

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004, Oliver Jowett wrote:

> Kris Jurka wrote:
> > What kind of solution can we offer for this problem? Do we really need to
> > make PGobject extensions for every type? Do we really want to force
> > people to have to create these for all user defined types?
>
> Well, you don't have to create a subclass, I think, if you don't mind
> doing the parsing in the application:

Right, for some reason I thought PGobject was abstract. It's still not
great to force them to include postgresql specific code in their app, but
I don't see a way around it without abandoning the goal of removing the
use oid zero.

> Alternatively, does setString() + "?::cidr" work?

In this case yes, but not in general. The driver types it as text so this
really comes out as ?::text::cidr which is different from unknown -> cidr.
In this case an explicit cast is available, but this won't be true (by
default) of other types. Consider:

jurka=# select '(1,2),(3,4)'::text::box;
ERROR: cannot cast type text to box

Kris Jurka

In response to

Browse pgsql-jdbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexey Yudichev 2004-10-22 11:22:21 Problems with protocol V3 after migration to latest driver
Previous Message Oliver Jowett 2004-10-21 20:45:00 Re: [GENERAL] JDBC +CIDR (fwd)