Re: Recent backward compatibility break in PreparedStatement.setObject() - Mailing list pgsql-jdbc

Hi,

In which version was this bug introduced and will a 9.4.1208 be released
soon ?

Regards,

Ger Timmens

On 12/31/2015 02:24 PM, Dave Cramer wrote:
> Apologies, you are correct I should have announced it.
>
> Dave Cramer
>
> davec@postgresintl.com <mailto:davec@postgresintl.com>
> www.postgresintl.com <http://www.postgresintl.com>
>
> On 31 December 2015 at 07:53, Markus KARG <markus@headcrashing.eu
> <mailto:markus@headcrashing.eu>> wrote:
>
>     Thanks, but as I also developed the fix as announced this morning, I
>     now spent time for nothing! Would be good if also the project lead
>     *first* files a bug report and assigns to itself. :-(____
>
>     __ __
>
>     *From:*davecramer@gmail.com <mailto:davecramer@gmail.com>
>     [mailto:davecramer@gmail.com <mailto:davecramer@gmail.com>] *On
>     Behalf Of *Dave Cramer
>     *Sent:* Donnerstag, 31. Dezember 2015 12:32
>     *To:* Markus KARG
>     *Cc:* Adam Rauch; List
>
>
>     *Subject:* Re: [JDBC] Recent backward compatibility break in
>     PreparedStatement.setObject()____
>
>     __ __
>
>     I put a PR in already https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/pull/480____
>
>
>     ____
>
>     Dave Cramer
>
>     davec@postgresintl.com <mailto:davec@postgresintl.com>____
>
>     www.postgresintl.com <http://www.postgresintl.com>____
>
>     __ __
>
>     On 31 December 2015 at 03:23, Markus KARG <markus@headcrashing.eu
>     <mailto:markus@headcrashing.eu>> wrote:____
>
>     I'm the original contributor of that changeset. This is simply a
>     bug. I'll fix it later today. Thanks for reporting! :-)____
>
>     -Markus____
>
>      ____
>
>     *From:*pgsql-jdbc-owner@postgresql.org
>     <mailto:pgsql-jdbc-owner@postgresql.org>
>     [mailto:pgsql-jdbc-owner@postgresql.org
>     <mailto:pgsql-jdbc-owner@postgresql.org>] *On Behalf Of *Dave Cramer
>     *Sent:* Mittwoch, 30. Dezember 2015 22:55
>     *To:* Adam Rauch
>     *Cc:* List
>     *Subject:* Re: [JDBC] Recent backward compatibility break in
>     PreparedStatement.setObject()____
>
>      ____
>
>     No, this was not intentional.____
>
>      ____
>
>     Thanks for the report!____
>
>
>     ____
>
>     Dave Cramer
>
>     davec@postgresintl.com <mailto:davec@postgresintl.com>____
>
>     www.postgresintl.com <http://www.postgresintl.com>____
>
>      ____
>
>     On 30 December 2015 at 16:45, Adam Rauch <adam@labkey.com
>     <mailto:adam@labkey.com>> wrote:____

>
>     The PostgreSQL JDBC driver recently changed PreparedStatement
>     behavior with calls such as setObject(index, value, Types.VARCHAR).
>     Previously, the driver would call value.toString() before binding
>     all VARCHAR values... meaning any object could be passed as "value."
>     In recent updates (e.g., 9.4.1207), most non-String values now
>     result in an exception:
>
>         Exception in thread "main" org.postgresql.util.PSQLException:
>     Cannot convert an instance of XXX to type String
>             at
>     org.postgresql.jdbc.PgStatement.cannotCastException(PgStatement.java:1813)
>             at
>     org.postgresql.jdbc.PgStatement.cannotCastException(PgStatement.java:1809)
>             at
>     org.postgresql.jdbc.PgStatement.castToString(PgStatement.java:1805)
>             at
>     org.postgresql.jdbc.PgStatement.setObject(PgStatement.java:1540)
>             at
>     org.postgresql.jdbc.PgStatement.setObject(PgStatement.java:1818)
>             at PGTest.main(PGTest.java:25)
>
>     This seems to have broken during the refactor to support binary
>     transfer for setObject(),
>     https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/issues/328. Was the behavior change
>     intentional? If so, it should probably be documented (e.g., I didn't
>     see any mention in the change log). If not, I'd suggest going back
>     to calling value.toString() for all types. I'm sure ours is not the
>     only application that relies on this long-standing (>10 years)
>     PostgreSQL JDBC behavior. FWIW, other JDBC drivers call toString()
>     in this situation.
>
>     Here's a contrived example that demonstrates the behavior change.
>     This code snippet runs fine in 1201 but fails with the exception

>     above in 1207.____
>
>         Object param = *new *Object() {*public *String toString() {*return **"tables"*;}};____
>
>      ____
>
>     *    try *(PreparedStatement stmt = conn.prepareStatement(*"SELECT */*/*FROM information_schema.tables WHERE table_name = ?"*))____
>
>         {____
>
>             stmt.setObject(1, param, Types.*/VARCHAR/*);____
>
>      ____
>
>         *    try *(ResultSet rs = stmt.executeQuery())____
>
>             {____
>
>             *    while *(rs.next())____
>
>                     System.*/out/*.println(rs.getString(1));____
>
>             }____
>
>         }____
>
>
>     Thanks,
>     Adam____
>
>      ____
>
>     __ __
>
>