Re: stringtype=unspecified is null check problem

There are 3 use cases, where I would need one setting, that always ensures, that null can be bound…

(setNull(1, <setting>) and stringtype=<setting>)

 

select 1 where 1=?          -- setNull(1, Types.VARCHAR) and stringtype=unspecified

select 1 where 'A'=?       -- setNull(1, Types.VARCHAR) and stringtype doesn’t matter

select 1 where ? is null  -- setNull(1, Types.VARCHAR) and stringtype=VARCHAR

 

That there is no way to binding null in a simple way is a bug for me, because the following will work, and the database has also to decide, how to map null:

 

select 1 where 1=null     -- now the database converts null to a number

select 1 where 'A'=null  -- now the database converts null to a varchar

select 1 where null is null – now the database doesn’t care… so everthing works.

 

The question is, what is the difference between the two, and why should the caller parse the statement, if he uses jdbc. These examples are easy, but in real world, in 1=? the 1 could also be a sub select (select max(id) from …)