Hello Peter, > 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 :-)
That's great news! In the mean time, I have implemented #1323 on SVN trunk and added your patch in a slightly modified version: https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/jooq/changeset/2161 Your logic is in the new class org.jooq.util.postgres.PostgresUtils. There were some other Postgres-related UDT parsing issues that needed to be fixed Cheers Lukas 2012/4/20 Peter Ertl <[email protected]>: > 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
