Re: default values - Mailing list pgsql-jdbc

  Hi folks!
  I'm finishing my effort on implementing DEFAULT keyword on our jdbc
driver!
  I already implemented all features and tested (yes, preparedstatements
and updatable resultsets!) and I just finished test cases...
  1- I just have to add methods to that classes that extend testcase in
order to regression tests run ok, right?
  2- Which docs I should update??

  Thanks in advance!

On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 16:01, Barry Lind wrote:
> Felipe,
>
> To start with you would need to add the method to
> org.postgresql.PGStatement interface (that is where the postgresql
> specific extensions go).  Then the implementation should go into
> org.postgresql.jdbc1.AbstractJdbc1Statement so the method is available
> to jdbc1, jdbc2 and jdbc3.  As far as only having it valid for 7.3,
> there is a method you can call to check the server version and
> conditional do this if the server is 7.3, and probably throw an
> exception for an older server, just look through the code for other
> instances of code called conditionally based on server version.
>
> The hardest part of this patch (I think) is going to be getting this to
> work for updateable result sets.  Also adding all the test cases to the
> regression tests will take some time as well.  And don't forget the doc
> updates.
>
> thanks,
> --Barry
>
>
>
> Felipe Schnack wrote:
> >   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