Re: Why is bool == java.sql.Types.BIT ??
От | Oliver Jowett |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Why is bool == java.sql.Types.BIT ?? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | BANLkTikqk9uh_3gXc4D-FHuS=+-BFTsErw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Why is bool == java.sql.Types.BIT ?? (aditsu <aditsu@yahoo.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Why is bool == java.sql.Types.BIT ??
|
Список | pgsql-jdbc |
On 24 May 2011 21:20, aditsu <aditsu@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Kris Jurka wrote: >> >> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Thomas Kellerer wrote: >> >>> I noticed that table columns that are defined as "bool" (Postgres >>> datatype) >>> are reported as java.sql.Types.BIT through DatabaseMetadata (or >>> ResultSetMetaData). >>> >>> Is there any valid reason why they are not reported as >>> java.sql.Types.BOOLEAN? >>> >> >> Because BOOLEAN is only available to JDBC3. Our driver still supports >> JDBC2 so we use BIT. BOOLEAN and BIT are the same thing as far as we can >> tell. >> > > Hi, apologies in case this gets posted twice. > I know this is an old thread, but I just hit this problem now and have the > same question. I'm currently using postgresql-9.0-801.jdbc4.jar and can't > see any reason not to use BOOLEAN. > boolean and bit are not interchangeable or even compatible (except > semantically); it definitely looks like a bug to me. Can you explain what (in your application) you would do differently for a column that returned Types.BOOLEAN versus a column that returned Types.BIT? Oliver
В списке pgsql-jdbc по дате отправления: