Re: Timestamp Conversion Woes Redux
От | Dave Cramer |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Timestamp Conversion Woes Redux |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 392278AB-987F-40CF-B59D-DDF53B9A4ACF@fastcrypt.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Timestamp Conversion Woes Redux (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Timestamp Conversion Woes Redux
|
Список | pgsql-jdbc |
What about creating two extension classes PGTimestamp, and PGTimestamptz then allowing setObject to recognize these internally and bind to Oid.Timestamp, and Oid.Timestamptz repectively for setString I am in favour of using UNKNOWN as this is no worse than what 7.4 drivers do now Dave On 19-Jul-05, at 9:54 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Oliver Jowett <oliver@opencloud.com> writes: > >> Dave Cramer wrote: >> >>> I'm also thinking we should use UNKOWN for setString as well, >>> hopefully >>> this would reduce the number of upgrade problems people are >>> having when >>> they upgrade from 7.x to 8.x >>> > > >> I still think this is a bad idea. >> > > 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. > > Unfortunately, both of these considerations speak *against* using > UNKNOWN for Timestamp. If the backend rejects the query --- or more > likely, makes the wrong datatype choice --- there will be no way for > the user to fix it. > > So I'm in favor of using UNKNOWN for setString, but I think we gotta > find another answer for Christian's problem. > > regards, tom lane > >
В списке pgsql-jdbc по дате отправления: