Re: TIMESTAMP - Mailing list pgsql-jdbc

From Barry Lind
Subject Re: TIMESTAMP
Date
Msg-id 3BBA281F.8080706@xythos.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: TIMESTAMP  (David Siebert <glwatcdr@yahoo.com>)
Responses Re: TIMESTAMP  (David Siebert <glwatcdr@yahoo.com>)
List pgsql-jdbc
OK, this is a known bug.  It should be fixed in current sources.  Try
using the 7.2 driver from the jdbc.postgresql.org website and see if
that works correctly for you.  If you search the email archives you can
find a discussion on this bug.

thanks,
--Barry

David Siebert wrote:

> It looks as if I blew it when I cut and pasted it.
> Lets try again.
> This is the error message.
>
> Phone Call PhoneCall(Rs) en:0 Bad Timestamp Format at
> 19 in 2001-10-01 15:20:06.66-05
>
> and this is the method that generates it.
>
>
> public PhoneCall(ResultSet rs) {
>     int errori=0;
>     try {
>            m_sCaller=rs.getString("scaller");
>            m_sPhone=rs.getString("sphone");
>            m_sPhone2=rs.getString("sphone2");
>            m_sQuedBy=rs.getString("squedby");
>            m_iPri=rs.getInt("ipri");
>            m_iStatus=rs.getInt("istatus");
>            m_sFor=rs.getString("sfor");
>            m_sNotes= rs.getString("snotes");
>            m_objPlacedDate =
> rs.getTimestamp("dplaceddate");
>            errori++;
>            m_objTakenDate =
> rs.getTimestamp("dtakendate");
>            errori++;
>            m_objResDate =
> rs.getTimestamp("dresdate");
>            errori++;
>            m_iResolution = rs.getInt("iresolution");
>            m_iReQues = rs.getInt("ireques");
>         } catch (Exception ex){
>             System.err.println("Phone Call
> PhoneCall(Rs) en:"+errori+" "+ex.toString());
>         }
>     }
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
> http://phone.yahoo.com
>
>



pgsql-jdbc by date:

Previous
From: Barry Lind
Date:
Subject: Re: LOCK TABLE oddness in PLpgSQL function called via JDBC
Next
From: Barry Lind
Date:
Subject: Re: are long strings (500 char?) working?