Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack)

> > >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!

Ah, it just dawned on me what might be happening: Peter, I'm guessing
that you are thinking of "INT48" or some such, the pseudo-integer array
type. Kyle is referring to the "int8" 8 byte integer type.

> 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.

btw, it might be better to use a syntax like

  ... where col = '1234';

or

 ... where col = int8 '1234';

If the former works, then that is a bit more generic that slapping a
"::int8" onto the constant field.

I'd imagine that this could also be coded into the app; if so that may
be where it belongs since then the driver does not have to massage the
queries as much and it will be easier for the *driver* to stay
compatible with applications.

                   - Thomas