From: | Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | aditsu <aditsu(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Why is bool == java.sql.Types.BIT ?? |
Date: | 2011-05-24 10:41:03 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTikqk9uh_3gXc4D-FHuS=+-BFTsErw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
On 24 May 2011 21:20, aditsu <aditsu(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Kris Jurka wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Thomas Kellerer wrote:
>>
>>> I noticed that table columns that are defined as "bool" (Postgres
>>> datatype)
>>> are reported as java.sql.Types.BIT through DatabaseMetadata (or
>>> ResultSetMetaData).
>>>
>>> Is there any valid reason why they are not reported as
>>> java.sql.Types.BOOLEAN?
>>>
>>
>> Because BOOLEAN is only available to JDBC3. Our driver still supports
>> JDBC2 so we use BIT. BOOLEAN and BIT are the same thing as far as we can
>> tell.
>>
>
> Hi, apologies in case this gets posted twice.
> I know this is an old thread, but I just hit this problem now and have the
> same question. I'm currently using postgresql-9.0-801.jdbc4.jar and can't
> see any reason not to use BOOLEAN.
> boolean and bit are not interchangeable or even compatible (except
> semantically); it definitely looks like a bug to me.
Can you explain what (in your application) you would do differently
for a column that returned Types.BOOLEAN versus a column that returned
Types.BIT?
Oliver
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | aditsu | 2011-05-24 11:05:43 | Re: Why is bool == java.sql.Types.BIT ?? |
Previous Message | aditsu | 2011-05-24 09:20:47 | Re: Why is bool == java.sql.Types.BIT ?? |