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

Nishant,

Please let me know if you run into any other issues.

Thanks,

Dave Cramer

dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca
http://www.credativ.ca

On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Nishant Singh
<nishant(dot)singh(at)egsgroup(dot)com>wrote:

> 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> 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> 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> 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> 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 logic table 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.jdbc4 and 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
>