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

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 there can be some
>>> other reason?
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Nishant
>>>
>>>
>
>
> This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc.
> www.surfcontrol.com
>