Re: default values - Mailing list pgsql-jdbc
From | Felipe Schnack |
---|---|
Subject | Re: default values |
Date | |
Msg-id | 1037791585.6095.196.camel@desenv1.ritterdosreis.br Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: default values (Barry Lind <blind@xythos.com>) |
List | pgsql-jdbc |
Well, there was a way to implement server side prepared statements... All PreparedStatements should be server-side... IMHO the way this is implemented in pgsql driver is completely non-standard. But I don't mind at all, I like the way it is :-) Oh, yes, I'm repeating over and over for a week that I would like to implement it. But I never developed an JDBC driver, much less pgsql driver... so I would like some pointers. For instance: where I should implement this? AbstractJdbc3PreparedStatement? How I guaratee this will be valid only for pgsql 7.3? On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 02:00, Barry Lind wrote: > Support for server side prepared statements was added in this way > because there is no other easy way to use them in standard jdbc. > However in this case there is an easy way to get default values using > standard jdbc functionality. I just don't see any compelling reason to > add this extension. > > But if you want to add it and provide a patch (and especially test all > the different cases, like server prepared statements, updateable result > sets, callable statements, etc), I would apply the patch, but I don't > plan to spend any time working on this myself. > > --Barry > > > Felipe Schnack wrote: > > So why setUseServerSidePrepare() was implemented? This is not potable, > > not standard, not anything. > > > > On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 22:48, Barry Lind wrote: > > > >> > >>Felipe Schnack wrote: > >> > >>> 2- This feature is avaliable in pgsql. Why not implement it? > >>> > >> > >>Since default column capability isn't part of the jdbc standard yet (but > >>since it is part of the SQL standard, I would expect it to be added > >>someday to the jdbc spec), adding support for it would require the user > >>to write non-portable jdbc code. Since there is a portable way to > >>accomplish the same thing (i.e. not include the column in the insert), I > >>don't see a compelling reason to add this functionality. > >> > >>thanks, > >>--Barry > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>>On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 17:16, Stuart Robinson wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>Hi, Felipe. > >>>> > >>>>I'm been trying to follow the discussion about default values and I'm a little > >>>>confused. I think David's reply is sensible. Unless I'm missing something, I > >>>>don't think there's an issue for inserts. All you have to do is not specify the > >>>>default column in the insert and it will automatically get the default value. I > >>>>think the issue only arises when you do updates, if you want to revert to the > >>>>default for a column that has been changed since it was originally inserted. > >>>> > >>>>Ate mais, > >>>>Stuart > >>>> > >>>>Quoting David Wall <David.Wall@Yozons.com>: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Why not simply remove varcharfield2 from the INSERT statement and let the > >>>>>database insert that value with the default value? Isn't the purpose of a > >>>>>default value to have the DB put that value in when none is specified? > >>>> > >>>>-- > >>>>Stuart Robinson <stuart@zapata.org> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>------------------------------------------------- > >>>>This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ > >>> > >> > >> > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org -- Felipe Schnack Analista de Sistemas felipes@ritterdosreis.br Cel.: (51)91287530 Linux Counter #281893 Faculdade Ritter dos Reis www.ritterdosreis.br felipes@ritterdosreis.br Fone/Fax.: (51)32303328
pgsql-jdbc by date: