On May 19, 2015 07:04:56 PM Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: > Bruno Harbulot asked for a devil's advocate by saying: > > My main point was that this is not specific to JDBC. Considering that even > > PostgreSQL's own ECPG is affected, the issue goes probably deeper than it > > seems. I'm just not convinced that passing the problem onto connectors, > > libraries and ultimately application developers is the right thing to do > > here. > > Well, one could argue that it *is* their problem, as they should be using > the standard Postgres way for placeholders, which is $1, $2, $3...
Shirley you are joking: Many products use JDBC as an abstraction layer facilitating (mostly) seamless switching between databases. I know the product I worked on did. Are you advocating that every single statement should use "SELECT * FROM foo WHERE bar = $1" on pg and "SELECT * FROM foo WHERE bar = ?" on every other database? A database is only as valuable as the the part of the outside world it can interact with. Large parts of the data-consuming world are developed in java using JDBC. If your opinion is that JDBC developers should adapt themselves to pg then you instantaneously diminish the value of pg. jan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
