Re: UDT arrays
От | Thor Michael Støre |
---|---|
Тема | Re: UDT arrays |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1297620209.4457.3.camel@localhost обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: UDT arrays (Radosław Smogura <rsmogura@softperience.eu>) |
Ответы |
Re: UDT arrays
|
Список | pgsql-jdbc |
Excuse me for butting in, but am I right in understanding that you're only talking about the Softperience JDBC driver, not the official one? http://softperience.eu/pages/cmn/ngpgjdbc.xhtml Like Lukas I'm also writing a database tool (though mine works on rather different principles), and I'm also extremely interested in support for UDT's and arrays of UDT's. - thormick On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 11:26 +0100, Radosław Smogura wrote: > I plan to sleep PGObjects, and wake for backward compatibility (maybe as > deprectaed or some parts of methodes there - there are static methods, which > causes problems with JDBC4 Exception model and some per connection specific > functionaly). Arrays parsing is different in text and in binary mode, and > binary mode requires more carefull casting. Actually current flow should allow > to read any nested type, which is supported by ResultSet, form parent object > (I putted only exception for getting result set with multidimensional arrays). > > I plan to give support for specific PG objects like box, but make them more > portable, without internal connection with JDBC dirver logic (you should be > able to serialize and deserialzie those objects on clients without > postgresql.jar). I plan as well to give "plugable" support for custom PG > objects, which can't be processed as UDT (above box is example). I think about > mapping some PG objects to standard Java classes e.g. PG's box -> java.awt.Box > (but this is far future). Above must be done in descriptive way, to be usable > with DataSource and app servers, eg. > > @Resource > private DataSource myPgDataSourceWithMyCustomObjects > > Both of those should be designed in fast way, low memory consuption and in way > preventing writing thousend lines of code if binary format for given object > will be different per DB level or per new protocol (see e.g. problems with > bytea encoding in 9.x releases).
В списке pgsql-jdbc по дате отправления: