Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack)
От | Kyle VanderBeek |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20010410133916.M30314@yaga.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack) (Peter Mount <peter@retep.org.uk>) |
Ответы |
Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 02:24:24PM +0100, Peter Mount wrote: > At 18:30 09/04/01 -0700, Kyle VanderBeek wrote: > >This is a new feature? Using indecies is "new"? I guess I really beg to > >differ. Seems like a bugfix to me (in the "workaround" category). > > Yes they are. INT8 is not a feature/type yet supported by the driver, hence > it's "new". > > Infact the jdbc driver supports no array's at this time (as PostgreSQL & > SQL3 arrays are different beasts). > > If it's worked in the past, then that was sheer luck. Alright man, you've got me confused. Are you saying that despite the existance of INT8 as a column type, and PreparedStatement.setLong(), that these ought not be used? If so, there is a really big warning missing from the documentation! I guess I'm asking this: I've got an enterprise database runnign 7.0.3 ready to go using INT8 primary keys and being accessed through my re-touched JDBC driver. Am I screwed? Is it going to break? If so, I need to fix this all very, very fast. -- Kyle. "I hate every ape I see, from chimpan-A to chimpan-Z" -- Troy McClure
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: