On May 19, 2015 07:04:56 PM Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> Bruno Harbulot asked for a devil's advocate by saying:
> > My main point was that this is not specific to JDBC. Considering that even
> > PostgreSQL's own ECPG is affected, the issue goes probably deeper than it
> > seems. I'm just not convinced that passing the problem onto connectors,
> > libraries and ultimately application developers is the right thing to do
> > here.
>
> Well, one could argue that it *is* their problem, as they should be using
> the standard Postgres way for placeholders, which is $1, $2, $3...
Shirley you are joking: Many products use JDBC as an abstraction layer
facilitating (mostly) seamless switching between databases. I know the product
I worked on did. Are you advocating that every single statement should use
"SELECT * FROM foo WHERE bar = $1" on pg and "SELECT * FROM foo WHERE bar = ?"
on every other database?
A database is only as valuable as the the part of the outside world it can
interact with. Large parts of the data-consuming world are developed in java
using JDBC. If your opinion is that JDBC developers should adapt themselves to
pg then you instantaneously diminish the value of pg.
jan