Hi Lukas, (btw can we switch to German?)
I attached another patch for reading octal data.
I enforced octal encoding with
sql.execute("set bytea_output to escape");
then stored all byte values from 0x00 - 0xff and retrieved them successfully
Cheers Peter Am 20.04.2012 um 09:21 schrieb Lukas Eder: > 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
udt-octal-parse.patch
Description: Binary data
