Re: Timestamp Conversion Woes Redux
От | Csaba Nagy |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Timestamp Conversion Woes Redux |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1121784422.3085.288.camel@coppola.muc.ecircle.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Timestamp Conversion Woes Redux (Oliver Jowett <oliver@opencloud.com>) |
Список | pgsql-jdbc |
Hi all, My opinion as a user who just "fixed" his application to properly set the data base types: fixing the application is a bigger PITA than fixing weird cases of strange type choices of the server. The first one involves changing lots of exiting code, the second involves newly written code, as I think the old code relying on setting string and letting the server decide what is it should work fine. In my case I've had to make extra meta data look-ups to be able to properly set the data type in some of our more generic code, which is adding some complexity overhead to my code (I presume the performance difference is negligible). Given the fact that the server is very likely to decide correctly the type, and a lot of code can be simpler if no exact knowledge of the data types is needed, I think setting the type to unknown should be acceptable. Actually, will this allow to use setString on a boolean field using preaparedStatements ? 'cause that's the one which gave me the headaches. Just my 2c. Cheers, Csaba. On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 16:03, Oliver Jowett wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > > I think one main point against using UNKNOWN is that it creates a risk > > of "could not resolve parameter type" query failures. That's OK for > > generic setString() cases, since the user can always escape the failure > > by changing his code to specify the parameter type more clearly. > > > The other argument against UNKNOWN is that the backend might choose an > > unexpected data type. Again, that doesn't scare me a lot for setString, > > because the backend's rules for dealing with UNKNOWN are biased in favor > > of resolving the parameter type as TEXT, which seems perfectly > > reasonable for setString cases. > > The main thing I'm worried about there is that if there are cases where > an UNKNOWN parameter will generate an error rather than resolve to TEXT, > then the driver has just backed the user into a corner they can't escape > from. Are there any cases where this can happen? (I'm thinking of some > of the ambiguous-type problems we ran into when sending nulls as UNKNOWN..) > > -O > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
В списке pgsql-jdbc по дате отправления: