| From: | Brian Olson <bql(at)bolson(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | AJ1Stmt.setObject() |
| Date: | 2004-04-03 18:44:19 |
| Message-ID: | EAB684AC-859E-11D8-8DC5-000393D1CAB0@bolson.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
I think AbstractJdbc1Statement.setObject(int,Object) needs to know how
to handle Java array types.
Last month someone mentioned the desire for using binary protocols and
I agree. Until then, I'd guess that
setObject( new int[]{1,2,3} )
should do
setString( "{1,2,3}" )
And so on for the other Java primitive types and String. I suppose for
Object[] one would get
"{" + x[0].toString() + "," + x[1].toString() ... "}"
That would match the current setObject behavior of defaulting to the
toString() value.
My problem is that I don't see any other way in jdbc to set array
elements of rows. So, this must be it, though unimplemented here.
I could probably whip this up in a couple hours. I'm looking for feed
back on whether it's the right thing to do.
Brian Olson
http://bolson.org/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Carter Harrison | 2004-04-03 20:38:14 | Storing Large Objects: ClassCastException |
| Previous Message | scott.marlowe | 2004-04-02 15:54:55 | Re: disabling seq scans |