Ok, that would be more type safe too. For my code it doesn't matter
anymore though, I've already fixed it to set the right type... but it
would have saved me about 2 days of work.
Cheers,
Csaba.
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 17:31, Dave Cramer wrote:
> For that matter we could use a PGUnknown type as well.
>
> Dave.
> On 19-Jul-05, at 10:52 AM, Csaba Nagy wrote:
>
> > [snip]
> >
> >> wasn't the whole thread. I agree with you that if we make setString
> >> default to UNKNOWN, there had better be a way to say "by golly this
> >> really is TEXT" for the corner cases. It'd be a good idea if it
> >> wasn't
> >> limited to TEXT, either, but could allow specification of any random
> >> datatype.
> >>
> >
> > This makes me think, isn't it possible to introduce a special type to
> > say something like: setObject(..., Types.UNKNOWN), and map that to
> > setting a string with type unknown ? In that case people could
> > still use
> > prepared statements with parameters of unknown type, it just have
> > to be
> > explicit. For me that would have been a much simpler "fixing the app".
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Csaba.
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of
> > broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
> >
> > http://archives.postgresql.org
> >
> >
>
