| From: | "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kris Jurka" <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Stephen Denne" <Stephen(dot)Denne(at)datamail(dot)co(dot)nz>, "PostgreSQL - JDBC" <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: JDBC, prepared queries, and partitioning |
| Date: | 2008-02-14 00:35:03 |
| Message-ID: | 1d4e0c10802131635h65bb34cbt9b7c558299c77be3@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
On Feb 13, 2008 11:29 PM, Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> wrote:
> Yes, but you then lose some of the features that are only available with
> the V3 protocol: ParameterMetaData, some ResultSetMetaData calls, OUT
> parameters for CallableStatements. I think that's the list, but couldn't
> swear to it.
I usually advise people to use protocol v2 for typical web usage and
we experienced another problem. A few exceptions are ambiguous with v2
and perfectly identifiable with v3 (foreign key violation for
example). There are apps relying on that and we were forced to use v3
for them (and we have lower performances).
--
Guillaume
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Denne | 2008-02-14 00:48:41 | Re: JDBC, prepared queries, and partitioning |
| Previous Message | Oliver Jowett | 2008-02-13 23:37:53 | Re: JDBC, prepared queries, and partitioning |