From: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com>, Christian Cryder <c(dot)s(dot)cryder(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Timestamp Conversion Woes Redux |
Date: | 2005-07-19 15:22:09 |
Message-ID: | 392278AB-987F-40CF-B59D-DDF53B9A4ACF@fastcrypt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
What about creating two extension classes
PGTimestamp, and PGTimestamptz
then allowing setObject to recognize these internally and bind to
Oid.Timestamp, and Oid.Timestamptz repectively
for setString I am in favour of using UNKNOWN as this is no worse
than what 7.4 drivers do now
Dave
On 19-Jul-05, at 9:54 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com> writes:
>
>> Dave Cramer wrote:
>>
>>> I'm also thinking we should use UNKOWN for setString as well,
>>> hopefully
>>> this would reduce the number of upgrade problems people are
>>> having when
>>> they upgrade from 7.x to 8.x
>>>
>
>
>> I still think this is a bad idea.
>>
>
> I think one main point against using UNKNOWN is that it creates a risk
> of "could not resolve parameter type" query failures. That's OK for
> generic setString() cases, since the user can always escape the
> failure
> by changing his code to specify the parameter type more clearly.
>
> The other argument against UNKNOWN is that the backend might choose an
> unexpected data type. Again, that doesn't scare me a lot for
> setString,
> because the backend's rules for dealing with UNKNOWN are biased in
> favor
> of resolving the parameter type as TEXT, which seems perfectly
> reasonable for setString cases.
>
> Unfortunately, both of these considerations speak *against* using
> UNKNOWN for Timestamp. If the backend rejects the query --- or more
> likely, makes the wrong datatype choice --- there will be no way for
> the user to fix it.
>
> So I'm in favor of using UNKNOWN for setString, but I think we gotta
> find another answer for Christian's problem.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Cramer | 2005-07-19 15:31:24 | Re: Timestamp Conversion Woes Redux |
Previous Message | Deepak Vohra | 2005-07-19 15:12:49 | unsubscribe |