Re: Facing issue with driver postgresql-9.2-1003.jdbc4 on PostgreSQL 9.2.4

Hi Dave,

We have decided to use the new driver with binaryTransfer=false.

Thanks for your help.

Regards,
Nishant

On 29/07/2013 16:37, Dave Cramer wrote:
>
> Nishant,
>
> Yes, pretty much the same except there were other enhancements, bug fixes.
>
> Dave Cramer
>
> dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca
> http://www.credativ.ca
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Nishant Singh
> <nishant(dot)singh(at)egsgroup(dot)com <mailto:nishant(dot)singh(at)egsgroup(dot)com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> Thanks for the information.
>
> Does that mean the behaviour with binaryTransfer=false in
> postgresql-9.2-1003.jdbc4 is same as what we have with
> postgresql-9.1-903.jdbc4 driver?
>
> Regards,
> Nishant
>
>
> On 29/07/2013 16:20, Dave Cramer wrote:
>>
>>
>> Nishant,
>>
>> Binary transfer was added and I think I am going to default it to
>> false going forward. It *should* be faster but apparently there
>> are some bugs in it.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> Dave Cramer
>>
>> dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca
>> http://www.credativ.ca
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Nishant Singh
>> <nishant(dot)singh(at)egsgroup(dot)com <mailto:nishant(dot)singh(at)egsgroup(dot)com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> binaryTransfer=false corrected the problem (I changed url to
>> "jdbc:postgresql://localhost:5434/db?binaryTransfer=false").
>>
>> What is the difference between postgresql-9.2-1003.jdbc4 and
>> postgresql-9.1-903.jdbc4 drivers in terms of binaryTransfer?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Nishant
>>
>>
>>
>> On 29/07/2013 14:37, Dave Cramer wrote:
>>>
>>> Nishant,
>>>
>>> The old driver should work fine with pg 9.2 I am wondering
>>> if this is an artifact of the binary transfer,
>>>
>>> Can you try with binaryTransfer=false
>>>
>>> Dave Cramer
>>>
>>> dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca
>>> http://www.credativ.ca
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Nishant Singh
>>> <nishant(dot)singh(at)egsgroup(dot)com
>>> <mailto:nishant(dot)singh(at)egsgroup(dot)com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Dave,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your reply.
>>>
>>> In my latest test I have noticed that with new jdbc
>>> driver (postgresql-9.2-1003.jdbc4.jar), out of total 512
>>> records only first 125 records are having non-null value
>>> for type 'character varying[15)[]' field and for the
>>> rest of the records (from 126 to 512) field value is null.
>>>
>>> But with old jdbc driver (postgresql-9.1-903.jdbc4.jar)
>>> all 512 records are having non-null value for type
>>> 'character varying[15)[]' field.File
>>> Comparison-of-results.jpg shows the comparison of test
>>> logs (OldDriverWithCursor.txt and
>>> NewDriverWithCursor.txt) for the two drivers.
>>>
>>> I am not sure whether above is of any help in
>>> understanding the actual problem or not.
>>>
>>> By the way we are planning to revert back to old jdbc
>>> driver (postgresql-9.1-903.jdbc4.jar) on the live
>>> environment having PostgreSQL 9.2.4 till we can find any
>>> solution for the problem.
>>>
>>> Do you think that there can be some issue (in general)
>>> with old jdbc driver(postgresql-9.1-903.jdbc4.jar) and
>>> PostgreSQL 9.2.4 combination?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Nishant
>>>
>>>
>>> On 29/07/2013 11:41, Dave Cramer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Nishant,
>>>>
>>>> Your email does suggest there is a bug in there
>>>> somewhere. However we would require a bit more of a
>>>> detailed test case in order to be able to help find it.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Dave Cramer
>>>>
>>>> dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca
>>>> http://www.credativ.ca
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Nishant Singh
>>>> <nishant(dot)singh(at)egsgroup(dot)com
>>>> <mailto:nishant(dot)singh(at)egsgroup(dot)com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> My Java web application uses PostgreSQL. It has a
>>>> document table with one of the field called
>>>> accountCode of type character varying(15)[]
>>>>
>>>> In the logictable records are accessed through
>>>> cursor. Thats is being done through Apache
>>>> Torque.(schema.xml: ...<table name="document"
>>>> idMethod="native">... <column name="accountCode"
>>>> type="CLOB" javaName="AccountCodeString"/>..)
>>>>
>>>> PostgreSQL log for the cursor are as follows:
>>>> 2013-07-26 15:14:00 BST 9592 efed-328 postgresLOG:
>>>> execute <unnamed>: DECLARE CursIt4 CURSOR FOR
>>>> SELECT document.DOCUMENTID,
>>>> document.DOCUMENTNUMBER, document.ADHOCDOCUMENTNUM,
>>>> document.ORGUNITID, document.ACCOUNTID,
>>>> document.TEMPLATEID, document.REFDOCUMENTID,
>>>> document.DOCUMENTTITLE, document.STATUSID,
>>>> document.STATUSSTR, document.DOCUMENTDATE,
>>>> document.MODTYPEID, document.DELETEFLAG,
>>>> document.CURRENTSTEP, document.ITEMSREADONLY,
>>>> document.ISCLOSEDFOREINVOICING,
>>>> document.ENABLEAUTOACDISTRIBUTION,
>>>> document.MODDATE, document.DEADLINE,
>>>> document.ACCOUNTCODE, document.EXTERNALID,
>>>> document.MULTIPLESHIPPING,
>>>> document.MULTIPLEBILLING,
>>>> document.MULTIPLEACCOUNTING,
>>>> document.DOCUMENTDESCRIPTION, document.REVISERNAME,
>>>> document.REVISEREMAIL, document.REVISERORGUNITNAME,
>>>> document.FORWARDREFID, document.REVISIONDATE,
>>>> document.RESPONSEVENDORID,
>>>> document.RESPONSECATALOGUEID, document.COURIERNAME,
>>>> document.COURIERTRACKINGNO,
>>>> document.WORKFLOWINSTANCEID,
>>>> document.WORKFLOWEVALUATED,
>>>> document.PURCHASEORDERVENDORID,
>>>> document.PURCHASEORDERCATALOGUEIDS,
>>>> document.NOTIFYSUPPLIER,
>>>> document.PURCHASEORDERVARIANT, document.MOD,
>>>> document.ISQUICKORDER, document.CONFIRMATIONORDER,
>>>> document.WITHDRAWNFROMAPPROVAL,
>>>> document.SHIPPINGDATE, document.FMSNAME,
>>>> document.EXTERNAL_REF_ID, document.ISCISORDER,
>>>> document.ISPROXY, document.ORIGINAL_PO_ID,
>>>> document.NUMBER_OF_VARIATIONS,
>>>> document.ORIGINAL_ORDER_DATE,
>>>> document.SHARED_SECRET FROM document,
>>>> organizationalUnit WHERE document.ISPROXY<>1 AND
>>>> organizationalUnit.ORGID=15136 AND
>>>> document.STATUSID IN
>>>> (1457,1456,1459,1458,1453,1466,1452,1455,1454,1450,1461,1470,1451)
>>>> AND document.ORGUNITID=organizationalUnit.ORGUNITID
>>>> ...
>>>> 2013-07-26 15:14:00 BST 9592 efed-328 postgresLOG:
>>>> execute <unnamed>: FETCH 25 FROM CursIt4
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> We have recently moved to PostgreSQL 9.2.4 and JDBC
>>>> driver postgresql-9.2-1003.jdbc4.jar. But we have
>>>> noticed that now accountcode field is not getting
>>>> populated in the Java code. Same is happening with
>>>> postgresql-9.2-1002.jdbc4.jar
>>>>
>>>> Earlier with PostgreSQL 9.1.4 and JDBC driver
>>>> postgresql-9.1-903.jdbc4.jar we were getting
>>>> accountCode field populated in the Java code.
>>>>
>>>> But when we change to JDBC driver
>>>> postgresql-9.1-903.jdbc4.jar on PostgreSQL 9.2.4 it
>>>> works fine.
>>>>
>>>> Are new drivers (postgresql-9.2-1003.jdbc4and
>>>> postgresql-9.2-1002.jdbc4) having some bug which is
>>>> causing this problem or therecan be some other reason?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Nishant
>>>>
>
>

This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com