Re: Timestamp Summary
| От | Kevin Grittner |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Timestamp Summary |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | s2e4ee96.009@gwmta.wicourts.gov обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Timestamp Summary (Christian Cryder <c.s.cryder@gmail.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-jdbc |
Hi Dave, I thought I addressed that in the long paragraph near the bottom of this message. http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-jdbc/2005-07/msg00283.php This seems to me that it doesn't require any new datatypes and doesn't require that we know the type on the server side ahead of time. Am I missing something? -Kevin >>> Dave Cramer <davec@postgresintl.com> 07/25/05 1:43 PM >>> The challenge with this, is that we don't know ahead of time what type the underlying data is. If we did this is a trivial problem. Right now we bind the parameter in the statement to a timestamptz type. If we knew ahead of time, we could easily bind it to a timestamp. The simplest solution that Christian has is to create two types that extend PGobject and do exactly as above.
В списке pgsql-jdbc по дате отправления: