Re: AbstractJdbc2Array - another patch - Mailing list pgsql-jdbc

From Marek Lewczuk
Subject Re: AbstractJdbc2Array - another patch
Date
Msg-id 4721D42E.4060107@lewczuk.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: AbstractJdbc2Array - another patch  (Kris Jurka <books@ejurka.com>)
Responses Re: AbstractJdbc2Array - another patch  (Kris Jurka <books@ejurka.com>)
List pgsql-jdbc
Kris Jurka pisze:
> Doh!  OK, now it mostly works, but there's still an issue with setting
> the basetype on a subarray to the base element type instead of an array
> type, as attached.  rs.getObject() (and metadata) are confused about
> what the correct type is.
I see the problem. I assume that we need to add support for array types,
which means that org.postgresql.core.Oid must have oid for every base
type array, e.g. _INT2 = 1005. It will be also required to add
appropriate data within org.postgresql.jdbc2.TypeInfoCache#types. Should
I do it ?

Regards,
Marek Lewczuk





pgsql-jdbc by date:

Previous
From: Thomas Hallgren
Date:
Subject: High Availability solution
Next
From: Kris Jurka
Date:
Subject: Re: AbstractJdbc2Array - another patch