I just read the postgresql doc again... the hex format ist default since 9.0
Earlier versions use the octal format It can be changed by setting variable 'bytea_output' So I will try to figure out how to read octal as well :-) Am Donnerstag, 19. April 2012 08:17:43 UTC+2 schrieb Lukas Eder: > > Hello Peter, > > > I recently realized that jOOQ does not support byte[] inside a postgresql > > UDT. > > > > This was pretty sad since I tried to use this UDT: > > Yes, Postgres UDT support was written early in the jOOQ project. > byte[] support must have gone forgotten. Note that you may be breaking > new grounds with Postgres UDTs among jOOQ users. If you happen to find > a reliable solution how to return UDTs from stored functions, I'll > happily apply another patch! Some background information: > > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4652651/how-to-read-a-udt-from-a-postgres-stored-function > > Of course, the optimal solution would be for the Postgres JDBC driver > to correctly implement JDBC... > > > As I would love to see full support for UDT in postgresql I attached > a patch > > which works for my current version 9.1. Would be cool to find it in jOOQ > > soon :-)) > > Looks good to me at first sight. Thanks for this patch. This should > make it in jOOQ 2.3.0: > https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/jooq/ticket/1323 > > Can we be sure that binary literals are always streamed in the > hexadecimal encoding? As far as I know, the default in Postgres is > octal encoding: > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/datatype-binary.html > > Some additional insight can be seen here: > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9320200/inline-blob-binary-data-types-in-sql-jdbc > > Cheers > Lukas > > Am Donnerstag, 19. April 2012 08:17:43 UTC+2 schrieb Lukas Eder: > > Hello Peter, > > > I recently realized that jOOQ does not support byte[] inside a postgresql > > UDT. > > > > This was pretty sad since I tried to use this UDT: > > Yes, Postgres UDT support was written early in the jOOQ project. > byte[] support must have gone forgotten. Note that you may be breaking > new grounds with Postgres UDTs among jOOQ users. If you happen to find > a reliable solution how to return UDTs from stored functions, I'll > happily apply another patch! Some background information: > > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4652651/how-to-read-a-udt-from-a-postgres-stored-function > > Of course, the optimal solution would be for the Postgres JDBC driver > to correctly implement JDBC... > > > As I would love to see full support for UDT in postgresql I attached > a patch > > which works for my current version 9.1. Would be cool to find it in jOOQ > > soon :-)) > > Looks good to me at first sight. Thanks for this patch. This should > make it in jOOQ 2.3.0: > https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/jooq/ticket/1323 > > Can we be sure that binary literals are always streamed in the > hexadecimal encoding? As far as I know, the default in Postgres is > octal encoding: > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/datatype-binary.html > > Some additional insight can be seen here: > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9320200/inline-blob-binary-data-types-in-sql-jdbc > > Cheers > Lukas > > Am Donnerstag, 19. April 2012 08:17:43 UTC+2 schrieb Lukas Eder: > > Hello Peter, > > > I recently realized that jOOQ does not support byte[] inside a postgresql > > UDT. > > > > This was pretty sad since I tried to use this UDT: > > Yes, Postgres UDT support was written early in the jOOQ project. > byte[] support must have gone forgotten. Note that you may be breaking > new grounds with Postgres UDTs among jOOQ users. If you happen to find > a reliable solution how to return UDTs from stored functions, I'll > happily apply another patch! Some background information: > > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4652651/how-to-read-a-udt-from-a-postgres-stored-function > > Of course, the optimal solution would be for the Postgres JDBC driver > to correctly implement JDBC... > > > As I would love to see full support for UDT in postgresql I attached > a patch > > which works for my current version 9.1. Would be cool to find it in jOOQ > > soon :-)) > > Looks good to me at first sight. Thanks for this patch. This should > make it in jOOQ 2.3.0: > https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/jooq/ticket/1323 > > Can we be sure that binary literals are always streamed in the > hexadecimal encoding? As far as I know, the default in Postgres is > octal encoding: > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/datatype-binary.html > > Some additional insight can be seen here: > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9320200/inline-blob-binary-data-types-in-sql-jdbc > > Cheers > Lukas > > Am Donnerstag, 19. April 2012 08:17:43 UTC+2 schrieb Lukas Eder: > > Hello Peter, > > > I recently realized that jOOQ does not support byte[] inside a postgresql > > UDT. > > > > This was pretty sad since I tried to use this UDT: > > Yes, Postgres UDT support was written early in the jOOQ project. > byte[] support must have gone forgotten. Note that you may be breaking > new grounds with Postgres UDTs among jOOQ users. If you happen to find > a reliable solution how to return UDTs from stored functions, I'll > happily apply another patch! Some background information: > > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4652651/how-to-read-a-udt-from-a-postgres-stored-function > > Of course, the optimal solution would be for the Postgres JDBC driver > to correctly implement JDBC... > > > As I would love to see full support for UDT in postgresql I attached > a patch > > which works for my current version 9.1. Would be cool to find it in jOOQ > > soon :-)) > > Looks good to me at first sight. Thanks for this patch. This should > make it in jOOQ 2.3.0: > https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/jooq/ticket/1323 > > Can we be sure that binary literals are always streamed in the > hexadecimal encoding? As far as I know, the default in Postgres is > octal encoding: > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/datatype-binary.html > > Some additional insight can be seen here: > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9320200/inline-blob-binary-data-types-in-sql-jdbc > > Cheers > Lukas > > Am Donnerstag, 19. April 2012 08:17:43 UTC+2 schrieb Lukas Eder: > > Hello Peter, > > > I recently realized that jOOQ does not support byte[] inside a postgresql > > UDT. > > > > This was pretty sad since I tried to use this UDT: > > Yes, Postgres UDT support was written early in the jOOQ project. > byte[] support must have gone forgotten. Note that you may be breaking > new grounds with Postgres UDTs among jOOQ users. If you happen to find > a reliable solution how to return UDTs from stored functions, I'll > happily apply another patch! Some background information: > > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4652651/how-to-read-a-udt-from-a-postgres-stored-function > > Of course, the optimal solution would be for the Postgres JDBC driver > to correctly implement JDBC... > > > As I would love to see full support for UDT in postgresql I attached > a patch > > which works for my current version 9.1. Would be cool to find it in jOOQ > > soon :-)) > > Looks good to me at first sight. Thanks for this patch. This should > make it in jOOQ 2.3.0: > https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/jooq/ticket/1323 > > Can we be sure that binary literals are always streamed in the > hexadecimal encoding? As far as I know, the default in Postgres is > octal encoding: > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/datatype-binary.html > > Some additional insight can be seen here: > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9320200/inline-blob-binary-data-types-in-sql-jdbc > > Cheers > Lukas > >
