Barry, Kris,
The "hack" is much smaller now thanks to Oliver's changes in the
backend.
It's now only minor changes.
Although, at this point nobody has asked for it. That might change once
8.1 supports them and people start expecting the same behaviour in
previous versions.
Attached is the proof of concept patch, which when I look at it is
larger than I remembered, but alot of the changes would be compatible,
ie all of the changes to getXXX()
Dave
On Thu, 2004-09-16 at 12:01, Barry Lind wrote:
> I agree with Kris' reasoning. I haven't liked this hack from the day it
> was first proposed by Redhat/Fijitsu. I had come to accept it as a
> necessary evil since I had given up on the backend ever supporting this
> natively.
>
> The best situation would be to have this in the backend. Second best
> would be to implement Dave's changes and have the backend never support
> it. Worst would be to have two incompatible implementations (in both
> the driver and the backend) (think bytea vs LO but worse since I am not
> sure it would be possible to toggle between two different ways of
> dealing with multiple out parameters).
>
> --Barry
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kris Jurka [mailto:books@ejurka.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 2:01 AM
> To: Dave Cramer
> Cc: pgsql-jdbc@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [JDBC] multiple out parameters implementation
>
>
>
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, Dave Cramer wrote:
>
> > I've managed to hack into the jdbc driver the capability for multiple
> > out parameters from a postgresql function.
> >
> > I would like to query the list as to their thoughts, is this a useful
> > feature for the driver ?
> >
>
> This is a useful feature because it's currently the only way to port
> certain things, but it's clearly not very straightforward and it causes
> some non trivial thinking on the parts of the database and Java
> developers to get their code to match up.
>
> Until just today I was in favor of this as we don't have any other
> options or any hope for a real procedure interface in the near future,
> but today on -hackers Gavin Sherry and Neil Conway indicated that they
> have a proposal for implementing this feature in the backend. I'd say
> lets take a look at the proposal and if we believe they've got a decent
> shot at getting this in 8.1 then we hold off on this hack. The method
> you proposed is pretty complicated and would introduce a pretty bad
> backwards compatibility problem.
>
> Kris Jurka
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
--
Dave Cramer
519 939 0336
ICQ # 14675561
www.postgresintl.com
