Hi,
I'm trying Blob with JDBC Driver jdbc7.0-1.2 on postgresql 7.0.2.
the setBinaryStream method returns
InputStream as parameter not supported
the getBinaryStream method returns and does nothing.
Does anyone can tell me if the example given in paragraph "Using Large
Objects" given in
Folks,
These JDBC issues belong on the pgsql-interfaces list, where
you'll find a community of JDBC bug-finders.
Have fun!
-Josh Berkus
Tom,
I'd recommend the traditional SQL solution: add a primary
key to the
address table and reference key values in the client
table.
What you seem to be telling us is that, other than
inheritance, PGSQL doesn't really support OODB functionality
at this time. Is that an accurate summary
Folks,
Is the TEXT data type automatically a BLOB (or TLOB?), or
does it only become so if huge amounts of text are saved to
the TEXT field?
-Josh Berkus
Hello.
I am trying to load a jdbc driver for postgres, only I
want to make it from an Applet. For an application I
used the form:
Class.forName ("postgresql.Driver");
Which the correct form would be to be able to make it?
__
Do You
"Josh Berkus" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What you seem to be telling us is that, other than
inheritance, PGSQL doesn't really support OODB functionality
at this time. Is that an accurate summary assessment?
What's your definition of "OODB functionality"? That's the kind
of term that can mean
I have PostgreSQL v7.02 running on a HP-UX 11.00 box. I as the owner of
some tables granted permissions to another user. I executed the following
command from psql
GRANT ALL on tables here to user2;
after running the command I lost permissions to the tables once I exited
psql. I had to run
Saltsgaver, Scott writes:
GRANT ALL on tables here to user2;
after running the command I lost permissions to the tables once I exited
psql. I had to run psql as the postgres user to correct the situation.
Is this a bug or desired behavior?
It's a bug. Fixed for 7.1.
--
Peter
"Saltsgaver, Scott" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is this a bug or desired behavior? I would imagine since I owned the tables
and then granted permissions to another user, I wouldn't lose my
permissions.
It's a bug, or at least a misfeature. As long as you haven't done any
explicit grants or
Quite awhile ago, Michael Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It looks like the order by is only being applied to the original select,
not the unioned select. Some authority should check on it, but by thought
it that a union does not necessarily maintain the order, so the entire
select should
10 matches
Mail list logo
