| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | <davec(at)postgresintl(dot)com> |
| Cc: | <c(dot)s(dot)cryder(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Timestamp Summary |
| Date: | 2005-07-25 18:52:16 |
| Message-ID: | s2e4ee96.009@gwmta.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
Hi Dave,
I thought I addressed that in the long paragraph near the bottom of this
message.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-jdbc/2005-07/msg00283.php
This seems to me that it doesn't require any new datatypes and doesn't
require that we know the type on the server side ahead of time. Am I
missing something?
-Kevin
>>> Dave Cramer <davec(at)postgresintl(dot)com> 07/25/05 1:43 PM >>>
The challenge with this, is that we don't know ahead of time what
type the
underlying data is. If we did this is a trivial problem. Right now we
bind the
parameter in the statement to a timestamptz type. If we knew ahead of
time, we
could easily bind it to a timestamp.
The simplest solution that Christian has is to create two types that
extend PGobject and do exactly as above.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Cramer | 2005-07-25 18:58:09 | Re: Timestamp Summary |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2005-07-25 18:37:42 | Re: Timestamp weirdness |