Re: JDBC int8 hack - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Kyle VanderBeek
Subject Re: JDBC int8 hack
Date
Msg-id 20010507164612.Z30314@yaga.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: JDBC int8 hack  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-patches
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 07:37:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Can someone comment on this?  It appends :int8 to long constants in Java
> > to fix our problem with not using int8 indexes with uncase long values.
> > Is this fixed in 7.1, and therefore the patch isn't needed?
>
> The problem is still there, but I think this proposed fix is entirely
> inappropriate.  See prior thread.

And I, of course, still disagree.  There is no ill effect to my patch,
even once the optimizer gets "fixed".  There is no problem caused by the
explicit (transparent) cast being added by the driver.

--
Kyle.
   "I hate every ape I see, from chimpan-A to chimpan-Z" -- Troy McClure

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Hiroshi Inoue
Date:
Subject: Re: ODBC cleanup
Next
From: Ian Lance Taylor
Date:
Subject: Re: patch for datetime.c