| From: | Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marek Lewczuk <newsy(at)lewczuk(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-jdbc <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: AbstractJdbc2Array - another patch |
| Date: | 2007-10-28 19:12:45 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSO.4.64.0710281511210.31092@leary.csoft.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Marek Lewczuk wrote:
> I still think that we should add base type arrays into Oid class - it will
> work much faster and will be appropriate cause Oid class already contains
> base types, so it is logical to put there base type arrays too. For user
> defined types I would provide a way to fetch oid from pg_type - but for now
> user defined types are not supported. However, if you really think that we
> should fetch oid for every array type then I'm able to do it but in my
> opinion we should stick with Oid class for now (only for base types).
>
This makes sense to me, static data for known types, dynamic for unknown.
Kris Jurka
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marek Lewczuk | 2007-10-28 19:28:59 | Re: AbstractJdbc2Array - another patch |
| Previous Message | cncinfo@126.com | 2007-10-28 18:56:53 | about function overload,a bug? |