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

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
>