RE: Todo/missing? (was Re: [ADMIN] High memory usage [PATCH])

Barry,

The data dictionary makes a lot of sense. I am a little concerned about
abandoning older versions of postgres. There are the current driver
works with versions as old as 6.5.3 .

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: Barry Lind [mailto:barry(at)xythos(dot)com]
Sent: June 27, 2001 1:52 PM
To: Dave(at)micro-automation(dot)net
Cc: pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Todo/missing? (was Re: [ADMIN] High memory usage [PATCH])

Dave,

What I would really like is more of an API from the backend (a set of
data dictionary views) that don't change (or at least change less
frequently). So that JDBC, psql and any other client out there doesn't
need to do a whole lot of work in this area.

I would propose that we add that support to deal with backend version
differences when we work on support for 7.2 backend. So what I would
really suggest is get 7.1 working, get 7.2 working along with continued
support for 7.1, and then if we have time go back and add 7.0 support.
Given a 7.2 that goes beta in a few months, I think this order makes
sense.

thanks,
--Barry

Dave Cramer wrote:

> As a first cut I agree, however things will change in the future, and
we
> should put the code in to deal with future, and past differences.
>
> Dave
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barry Lind [mailto:barry(at)xythos(dot)com]
> Sent: June 27, 2001 1:34 PM
> To: Dave(at)micro-automation(dot)net
> Cc: pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: Todo/missing? (was Re: [ADMIN] High memory usage [PATCH])
>
> Dave,
>
> I personaly don't think it is worth the time to make this work
correctly
>
> against a 7.0 database. I think we should focus on fixing this for
7.1
> first. Then later see if it still makes sense to work on getting 7.0
> support done.
>
> thanks,
> --Barry
>
> Dave Cramer wrote:
>
>
>>Barry,
>>
>>The getXXXFunctions aren't implemented
>>Some of the other functions are correct for version 7.1 but not for
>>previous versions. Ie. The row length, etc. I think the driver should
>>get the version and determine what is correct for each version.
>>
>>I think this is incorrect.
>> public boolean supportsSelectForUpdate() throws SQLException
>> {
>> // XXX-Not Implemented
>> return false;
>> }
>>
>>There are a number of things here which are hard coded, and possible
>>wrong.
>>
>>I started to work on this, but since I am going on vacation next week
>>
> I
>
>>have a number of fires to get down to a slow burn before I go.
>>
>>Dave
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Barry Lind [mailto:barry(at)xythos(dot)com]
>>Sent: June 26, 2001 9:22 PM
>>To: Dave Cramer
>>Cc: pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
>>Subject: Re: Todo/missing? (was Re: [ADMIN] High memory usage [PATCH])
>>
>>Dave,
>>
>>Can you give a little more detail on what you mean by 'Improved
>>DatabaseMetaData'? What specific areas are currently lacking?
>>
>>thanks,
>>--Barry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 10:56:18PM -0400, Dave Cramer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I have to agree, we need to compile a todo list.
>>>>>
>>>>>Mine would include:
>>>>>
>>>>>1) Comprehensive test suite. This may be available already.
>>>>>2) Updateable resultSet
>>>>>3) Improved DatabaseMetaData
>>>>>4) Compatible blob support
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>Added to official PostgreSQL TODO:
>>>
>>>* JDBC
>>> * Comprehensive test suite. This may be available already.
>>> * Updateable resultSet
>>> * Improved DatabaseMetaData
>>> * Compatible blob support
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>