> Do you suppose you could give me a rundown of whats going on internally for > these objects on inserts?
Hmm, the behaviour is rather unexpected if it isn't covered by jOOQ's integration test. I mean, you can probably assume that PreparedStatement.setObject() will be called by jOOQ to pass those PG* objects to JDBC. But there's no guarantee, as variable binding across all 14 SQL dialects has become a bit tricky inside of jOOQ. I'm not even sure if jOOQ converters could be used to add more certainty about jOOQ's behaviour here, as the JDBC data type would probably still be "Object" - I haven't tried this yet, though. > I would much rather be using Records than these > custom insert statements with casts. I keep running into problems out of > jOOQ, NullPointerExceptions (no idea) and other things. Yes, but unfortunately, I really can't give you any hints towards a sound solution yet. > If I may say, what we really need is a proper "ANY" type that can be used > with records, basically any time jOOQ runs into "USER-DEFINED" just use the > magic ANY type and ignore all the type BS Java side as the user is clearly > trying to do something crazy. There are already several checks for UDT, > cursor type, and such in the type system, but the current Postgres ANY type > is of type Object (SQL type OTHER) and then jOOQ insists incorrectly > somewhere, instead of just passing it through to the JDBC engine. OK, I wasn't aware of this "USER-DEFINED" pseudo-type. You're right, "ANY" would be a better match, here. Can you provide me with some minimal DDL to reproduce "USER-DEFINED"? I can then try to at least make *some* things work before PG* types are formally supported Cheers Lukas -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jOOQ User Group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
