Re: default values

Well, there was a way to implement server side prepared statements...
All PreparedStatements should be server-side... IMHO the way this is
implemented in pgsql driver is completely non-standard.
But I don't mind at all, I like the way it is :-)
Oh, yes, I'm repeating over and over for a week that I would like to
implement it. But I never developed an JDBC driver, much less pgsql
driver... so I would like some pointers. For instance: where I should
implement this? AbstractJdbc3PreparedStatement? How I guaratee this will
be valid only for pgsql 7.3?

On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 02:00, Barry Lind wrote:
> Support for server side prepared statements was added in this way
> because there is no other easy way to use them in standard jdbc.
> However in this case there is an easy way to get default values using
> standard jdbc functionality. I just don't see any compelling reason to
> add this extension.
>
> But if you want to add it and provide a patch (and especially test all
> the different cases, like server prepared statements, updateable result
> sets, callable statements, etc), I would apply the patch, but I don't
> plan to spend any time working on this myself.
>
> --Barry
>
>
> Felipe Schnack wrote:
> > So why setUseServerSidePrepare() was implemented? This is not potable,
> > not standard, not anything.
> >
> > On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 22:48, Barry Lind wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Felipe Schnack wrote:
> >>
> >>> 2- This feature is avaliable in pgsql. Why not implement it?
> >>>
> >>
> >>Since default column capability isn't part of the jdbc standard yet (but
> >>since it is part of the SQL standard, I would expect it to be added
> >>someday to the jdbc spec), adding support for it would require the user
> >>to write non-portable jdbc code. Since there is a portable way to
> >>accomplish the same thing (i.e. not include the column in the insert), I
> >>don't see a compelling reason to add this functionality.
> >>
> >>thanks,
> >>--Barry
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 17:16, Stuart Robinson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Hi, Felipe.
> >>>>
> >>>>I'm been trying to follow the discussion about default values and I'm a little
> >>>>confused. I think David's reply is sensible. Unless I'm missing something, I
> >>>>don't think there's an issue for inserts. All you have to do is not specify the
> >>>>default column in the insert and it will automatically get the default value. I
> >>>>think the issue only arises when you do updates, if you want to revert to the
> >>>>default for a column that has been changed since it was originally inserted.
> >>>>
> >>>>Ate mais,
> >>>>Stuart
> >>>>
> >>>>Quoting David Wall <David(dot)Wall(at)Yozons(dot)com>:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Why not simply remove varcharfield2 from the INSERT statement and let the
> >>>>>database insert that value with the default value? Isn't the purpose of a
> >>>>>default value to have the DB put that value in when none is specified?
> >>>>
> >>>>--
> >>>>Stuart Robinson <stuart(at)zapata(dot)org>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>-------------------------------------------------
> >>>>This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org
--

Felipe Schnack
Analista de Sistemas
felipes(at)ritterdosreis(dot)br
Cel.: (51)91287530
Linux Counter #281893

Faculdade Ritter dos Reis
www.ritterdosreis.br
felipes(at)ritterdosreis(dot)br
Fone/Fax.: (51)32303328