Thread: Re: [HACKERS] ODBC Driver int8 Patch

Re: [HACKERS] ODBC Driver int8 Patch

From
Bruce Momjian
Date:
I am waiting for someone to comment on this.  Anyone?



[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> Hi Bruce,
>
> Did you accept this patch in the end or was it rejected?
>
> Regards, Dave.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman@candle.pha.pa.us]
> > Sent: 16 January 2001 16:50
> > To: Dave Page
> > Cc: 'pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org'
> > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] ODBC Driver int8 Patch
> >
> >
> > As I remember, the problem is that this makes us match the
> > ODBC v2 spec,
> > but then we would not match the v3 spec.  Is that correct?
> >
> >
> > [ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > It was suggested that I post this patch here as no notice
> > was taken of it
> > > when posted to interfaces!
> > >
> > > This fixes problems with int8 columns which are reported by
> > the driver as
> > > SQL_BIGINT rather than SQL_CHAR as per the ODBC v2 spec.
> > Specifically, I
> > > have had problems with MS ADO - any queries that contain an
> > int8 column in
> > > the resultset will *always* return an empty recordset.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Dave.
> > >
> > > *** pgtypes.c.orig      Fri Dec 22 09:12:22 2000
> > > --- pgtypes.c   Fri Dec 22 09:12:22 2000
> > > ***************
> > > *** 217,223 ****
> > >         case PG_TYPE_XID:
> > >         case PG_TYPE_INT4:          return SQL_INTEGER;
> > >
> > > !       case PG_TYPE_INT8:                      return SQL_BIGINT;
> > >         case PG_TYPE_NUMERIC:           return SQL_NUMERIC;
> > >
> > >         case PG_TYPE_FLOAT4:        return SQL_REAL;
> > > --- 217,223 ----
> > >         case PG_TYPE_XID:
> > >         case PG_TYPE_INT4:          return SQL_INTEGER;
> > >
> > > !       case PG_TYPE_INT8:                      return SQL_CHAR;
> > >         case PG_TYPE_NUMERIC:           return SQL_NUMERIC;
> > >
> > >         case PG_TYPE_FLOAT4:        return SQL_REAL;
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >   Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
> >   pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
> >   +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
> >   +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
> > Pennsylvania 19026
> >
>


--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Re: Re: [HACKERS] ODBC Driver int8 Patch

From
Thomas Lockhart
Date:
> I am waiting for someone to comment on this.  Anyone?

Looks good, but...

We should surround the change with #ifdef ODBC_V2 or ODBC_V3 to mark
what should be changed when moving to the newer standard. No point in
having to remember this from first principles when we do move to V3...

                     - Thomas

Re: Re: [HACKERS] ODBC Driver int8 Patch

From
Tom Lane
Date:
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> I am waiting for someone to comment on this.  Anyone?

Seems like we need a policy decision: do we want to try to be ODBC v2 or
v3?  I don't know what else we might have to change if we want to be
v3-compliant, so that seems like a risky way to proceed right before
a release ...

            regards, tom lane

Re: Re: [HACKERS] ODBC Driver int8 Patch

From
The Hermit Hacker
Date:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Tom Lane wrote:

> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > I am waiting for someone to comment on this.  Anyone?
>
> Seems like we need a policy decision: do we want to try to be ODBC v2 or
> v3?  I don't know what else we might have to change if we want to be
> v3-compliant, so that seems like a risky way to proceed right before
> a release ...

Are we breaking anything by losing the v3-compliancy at this point?  The
patch is small, so should be brain-dead to reverse at a later date *if* we
aren't breaking anything by applying it now ...