Re: tightening up on use of oid 0

Iain wrote:
> Hi Oliver,
>
> Just out of interest, is the case you marked,
>
>> setObject(i, (Integer)null); // (*)
>
> equivalent to
>
> Integer someInteger = null;
> setObject(i, someInteger);
>
> ?

Yes.

> I would ask the question then, is there any situation where there is no
> alternative to the insufficiantly typed calls you listed?

I think there is always an alternative.

For standard types you can use setNull or setObject with a type code:

setNull(i, Types.INTEGER);
setObject(i, null, Types.INTEGER);

For extension types (classed as Types.OTHER) you can use the singleton
NULL objects I introduced in my patch:

setObject(i, PGline.NULL);
setObject(i, PGline.NULL, Types.OTHER);

-O