Re: Problems with question marks in operators (JDBC, ECPG, ...)

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От David G. Johnston
Тема Re: Problems with question marks in operators (JDBC, ECPG, ...)
Дата
Msg-id CAKFQuwa_17RciDta6FFsqB+Uo=Yb7ZaQhxzaSnE39fpwZTuzsg@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Problems with question marks in operators (JDBC, ECPG, ...)  (Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com>)
Ответы Re: Problems with question marks in operators (JDBC, ECPG, ...)  (Bruno Harbulot <bruno@distributedmatter.net>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com> wrote:
Gavin Flower <GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz> wrote:

> I prefer the $1 approach, others can't use that, and there are
> situations where I could not either.
>
> So, how about defaulting to the '?' approach, but have a method
> to explicitly set the mode - to switch to using '$'?

Are you suggesting that we implement something other than what is
described in these documents for prepared statement parameters?:

http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/sql/PreparedStatement.html

http://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/jcp/jdbc-4_1-mrel-spec/jdbc4.1-fr-spec.pdf

If so, I strongly oppose that.  If we are not going to deprecate
use of the question mark character for operators, we need some
nonstandard hack to our JDBC implementation, but an alternative
syntax for specifying PreparedStatement and CallableStatement
parameters seems entirely the wrong way to go.

​I'll repeat my earlier comment that having a mode that allows for libpq syntax while still conforming to the JDBC class API would have value for those users willing to admit their application and code is not portable (and if they are using these operators it is not) and would rather conform as closely to native PostgreSQL language mechanics as possible.​

​That said I would not argue that the current official driver needs to be so modified.​


The issue here is what to do about the difficulties in using JDBC
prepared statements in combination with the PostgreSQL extension of
operator names containing question marks.  Using a double question
mark is not horrible as a solution.  It may not be what we would
have arrived at had the discussion taken place on the pgsql-jdbc
list rather than underneath a github pull request, but we can
only move forward from where we are.

Out of curiosity, how long has the ?? solution been implemented in
a driver jar file available as a public download? 

​Less than 6 months...discussion started a few months prior to that.
 
What are the
guidelines for what discussion belongs on the pgsql-jdbc list and
what discussion belongs on github?  Is someone interested in
participating in the discussions leading to decisions about our
JDBC connector expected to follow both?


As things stand now - it seems that way.  There are no guidelines that I can tell but I'd likely consider pgsql-jdbc the equivalent of -general and GitHub looks like -hackers.  Neither is particularly high volume.

​David J.

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Peter Geoghegan
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE with _any_ constraint
Следующее
От: Dave Cramer
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Problems with question marks in operators (JDBC, ECPG, ...)