[HACKERS] Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack)

2001-04-17 Thread Kyle VanderBeek
On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 09:11:54AM -0400, Peter T Mount wrote: > Erm, int8 isn't long, but an array of 8 int's (unless it's changed). http://postgresql.readysetnet.com/users-lounge/docs/7.0/user/datatype.htm#AEN942 It is very much an 8-byte integer, the correlary to Java's Long/long. -- Kyle.

[HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack)

2001-04-13 Thread Kyle VanderBeek
On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 02:57:16AM +, Thomas Lockhart wrote: > > Alright man, you've got me confused. Are you saying that despite the > > existance of INT8 as a column type, and PreparedStatement.setLong(), that > > these ought not be used? If so, there is a really big warning missing > > fr

[HACKERS] Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack)

2001-04-10 Thread Kyle VanderBeek
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 02:24:24PM +0100, Peter Mount wrote: > At 18:30 09/04/01 -0700, Kyle VanderBeek wrote: > >This is a new feature? Using indecies is "new"? I guess I really beg to > >differ. Seems like a bugfix to me (in the "workaround" category

[HACKERS] Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack)

2001-04-10 Thread Kyle VanderBeek
Sorry, meant to hit all of these. On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 02:24:24PM +0100, Peter Mount wrote: > >I'm going to start digging around in the optimizer code so such hacks as > >mine aren't needed. It's really haenous to find out your production > >server is freaking out and doing sequential scans f