You mean something like `treat( cast(x as some_db_type) as String)`?
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:12 AM Christian Beikov <christian.bei...@gmail.com> wrote: > So during parsing you try to lookup the castTarget and if it can't be > found, just pass through? If you pass it through, what would be the type of > the expression? > > I'd like to present an idea I just had. How about we reuse the "TREAT" > function/operator for doing these "casts" to named types. Applying the > operator does not necessarily cause a SQL "cast" i.e. if the expression is > a select item and the JDBC driver supports converting a value to the > desired type automatically, there is no need for a cast. The main > difference to a "cast" function would be, that the expression type will be > set to the desired type, whereas the "cast" function will set the type to > "unknown" i.e. requiring the user to use the treat operator around the > cast. The cast function will then only ever be used for the pass-through > case. Wdyt? > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen, > ------------------------------ > *Christian Beikov* > Am 30.05.2017 um 18:00 schrieb Steve Ebersole: > > How about this rule then? > > castTarget > // should allow either > // - named cast (IDENTIFIER) > // - JavaTypeDescriptorRegistry (imported) key > // - java.sql.Types field NAME (coded cast synonym - field's value) > // - "pass through" > // - coded cast (INTEGER_LITERAL) > // - SqlTypeDescriptorRegistry key > : IDENTIFIER | INTEGER_LITERAL > ; > > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:16 AM Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org> > wrote: > >> Yes, ultimately these need to resolve to SqlTypeDescriptor. So perhaps >> we allow both. >> >> What I just want to get out of is the open-ended-ness. Non-determinism >> is bad. E.g., like what you just mentioned... how should the parser >> understand that "TEXT" `cast(x as TEXT)` is a database type name versus >> Java class name versus something else? Structurally we cannot - one String >> is syntactically the same as any other String. >> >> So do we just accept some policy of "well if we don't understand it we'll >> just pass it through to the database"? To me that's just a cop-out. Not >> to mention that it invariably leaves the door open to non-portability. If >> instead we limited this to just Java types (JavaTypeDescriptorRegistry >> keys) and JDBC type codes (SqlTypeDescriptorRegistry keys) we can fully >> support this in a portable manner. Now that does lead to a question for >> databases which make the silly decision (looking at you pgsql) to map >> multiple types to the same JDBC type code. >> >> As much as possible I think we ought to not be relying on the database to >> validate these kinds of things. An error from the database is going to be >> much less descriptive as to what exactly is wrong compared to a validation >> done by Hibernate. >> >> Not sure the correct answer, just some thoughts. >> >> An option is to allow 3 types of cast targets: >> >> 1. Java type name we can resolve against the >> JavaTypeDescriptorRegistry >> 2. A JDBC type (either by code or name) we can resolve against the >> SqlTypeDescriptorRegistry >> 3. Any other text we can resolve against the Dialect as a "valid SQL >> type" >> >> I'm kind of leery of (3), but if everyone else agrees it is important to >> allow that non-portability then I will consider it. And keep in mind that >> this is really only needed for databases like pgsql to handle the multiple >> types it maps to a single JDBC type code... all other cases can (and >> should) be handled by (1) and (2). >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:36 AM Christian Beikov < >> christian.bei...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Sounds good, although I guess there might be cases when ONLY this >>> approach won't work that well. >>> >>> I am specifically thinking about casts to the various character types >>> that are available in the different DBMS. A cast to "String" might work >>> most of the time, but we should still have an option to cast to CLOB, >>> TEXT or whatever other datatype a DBMS offers. >>> >>> >>> Mit freundlichen Grüßen, >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> *Christian Beikov* >>> Am 29.05.2017 um 16:17 schrieb Steve Ebersole: >>> > Currently casting in HQL is under-defined and open-ended (and therefore >>> > pretty inconsistent). What does that mean? Well, what is a valid cast >>> > target in HQL? There really is not a defined >>> > answer to that. >>> > >>> > I'd like to start formalizing the answer to this. >>> > >>> > Specifically, I am thinking this should be defined around >>> > JavaTypeDescriptor. So that we'd understand any Java type registered >>> with >>> > with JavaTypeDescriptorRegistry, and specifically any that properly >>> > implements `#getJdbcRecommendedSqlType` (using the Dialect to resolve >>> the >>> > cast target in the generated SQL). >>> > >>> > Anyone have objections to this? Thoughts? >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > hibernate-dev mailing list >>> > hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org >>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> hibernate-dev mailing list >>> hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev >>> >> > _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
