From: | Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> |
Cc: | pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com, "pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: getXXX methods |
Date: | 2004-07-07 01:48:51 |
Message-ID: | 40EB5683.90301@opencloud.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
Kris Jurka wrote:
> The
> DataTruncation API is organized around byte sizes and just doesn't seem
> right for numeric data.
There is support throughout that API for "unknown sizes" which seems
appropriate when you're not dealing with explicitly-sized types. And
even types such as varchar don't map directly to bytes anyway..
> Even if the spec does imply that a warning
> shuold be issued (which is not clear to me), I can't imagine why
> anyone would want this. If I want truncation I'll do it myself, otherwise
> I want any error to immediately raise a red flag and put the brakes on
> processing.
I tend to agree -- but Dave evidently has a use for it, in which case
truncation+warning seems a lesser evil than silent truncation.
> How many people really check for warnings anyway?
I hate this argument. If we don't generate any warnings, of course no
one will check for them!
-O
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kris Jurka | 2004-07-07 01:58:19 | Re: getXXX methods |
Previous Message | Kris Jurka | 2004-07-07 01:38:52 | Re: getXXX methods |