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

From Kris Jurka
Subject Re: AbstractJdbc2Array - another patch
Date
Msg-id Pine.BSO.4.64.0710261209350.18147@leary.csoft.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: AbstractJdbc2Array - another patch  (Marek Lewczuk <newsy@lewczuk.com>)
Responses Re: AbstractJdbc2Array - another patch  (Marek Lewczuk <newsy@lewczuk.com>)
List pgsql-jdbc

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Marek Lewczuk wrote:

> 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 ?
>

That doesn't sound right to me because we won't be able to put every
possible type (think about user defined) into the Oid class.  Perhaps
getResultSet should convert getBaseTypeName() to oid instead of
getBaseType?  Then you just need to know if your output is an array or not
(by checking isMultiDimensional) to know whether you want the oid for type
or _type.

Kris Jurka

pgsql-jdbc by date:

Previous
From: Marek Lewczuk
Date:
Subject: Re: AbstractJdbc2Array - another patch
Next
From: Marek Lewczuk
Date:
Subject: Re: AbstractJdbc2Array - another patch