| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Wooten <kdubb(at)me(dot)com>, pgsql-jdbc <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgjdbc-ng |
| Date: | 2014-02-25 15:01:20 |
| Message-ID: | 530CB040.2080801@vmware.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
On 02/25/2014 04:49 PM, Guillaume Smet wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Guillaume Smet
> <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Is PostgreSQL 9.2 a strong requirement or only necessary for advanced
>> features?
>
> Considering I have the following exception at startup:
> [2014-02-25 15:44:27,711] ERROR - ConnectionPool - -
> Unable to create initial connections of pool.
> com.impossibl.postgres.jdbc.PGSQLSimpleException: Connection Error:
> relation "pg_catalog.pg_range" does not exist
> at com.impossibl.postgres.jdbc.ErrorUtils.makeSQLException(ErrorUtils.java:159)
> at com.impossibl.postgres.jdbc.ConnectionUtil.createConnection(ConnectionUtil.java:181)
> 9.2 looks like a strong requirement.
That should be easy to fix. Looking at PGtype, where the query is coming
from, all you need to do is add another version of the query without the
reference to pg_range. The logic for sending a different version of the
query depending on the server version is already there.
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Guillaume Smet | 2014-02-25 15:12:32 | Re: pgjdbc-ng |
| Previous Message | Guillaume Smet | 2014-02-25 14:49:54 | Re: pgjdbc-ng |