Thanks a lot. I've incorporated your items
I'll also incorporate your postings from last week about bytea,
large objects and such.
On Wed, 08 Aug 2001 20:56:05 -0700, you wrote:
>First off, thank you for pulling this information together in one place.
> It is really appreciated.
>I was going through your list of issues and I had the following comments
> The current implementation is poor. As you point out the
>implementation of storing up the statements and then executing them one
>by one defeats the purpose of the batch methods. The intended behaviour
>is to send a set of updates/inserts in one round trip to the database.
>The server does support this functionality (you can send multiple
>statements in one call by using a semicolon as a statement separator).
>The server will then execute them all at once. The one limitation is
>that the oid/row count returned by such a batch update only reflects the
>oid/row count of the last statement in the batch. In reading the spec
>this behaviour is in conformance if not ideal.
>getDatabaseProductVersion - I get a pass on this test when I run.
>supportsANSI92EntryLevelSQL - Since postgres now does support outer
>joins, I think the answer here should be yes. I think the general
>feeling is that if there is a deviation from entry level SQL92 it is a bug.
>The bytea type is documented for 7.2. You can see it in the current
>docs off of the developers corner links.
>The driver does implement setBlob the same way as setBinaryStream. In
>fact it uses setBinaryStream in it's implementation. I believe that
>setBlob is functionally correct in it's assumptions that the underlying
>type is oid and thus a LargeObject.
>ODBC escape processing is minimally handled. The escapes for date
>format are supported, but not the rest.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]