| From: | Paul Thomas <paul(at)tmsl(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | "pgsql-jdbc (at) postgresql (dot) org" <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: IN clauses via setObject(Collection) [Was: Re: Prepared |
| Date: | 2003-07-22 08:34:10 |
| Message-ID: | 20030722093410.C4376@bacon |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
On 21/07/2003 18:51 Fernando Nasser wrote:
> Also, we may limit this behavior with Collections to the IN clause
> only. Where else could we need lists to replace the '?' ?
Nowhere. Not even with an IN clause. If the programmer needs IN(1,2,3,4,5)
then he must write IN(?,?,?,?,?) in his prepare string. That's the way
JDBC works. Period. Acceptance of any other behaviour is un-professional
and against the standards. As you said yourself, neither Oracle nor DB2
support this behavior. Neither should PostgreSQL.
--
Paul Thomas
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Thomas Micro Systems Limited | Software Solutions for the Smaller
Business |
| Computer Consultants |
http://www.thomas-micro-systems-ltd.co.uk |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sylwester Rutkowski | 2003-07-22 09:25:33 | inet type handling |
| Previous Message | Peter Kovacs | 2003-07-22 07:48:36 | Re: Prepared Statements |