Re: getProcedureColumns

[Jeffrey Cox <namredips(at)gmail(dot)com>]

Yea sure... I will look into the COLUM_TYPE issue and write a test  
case for column names. On that note, when I ran the test suit all the  
jdbc2 test would run fine, however, most of the others failed due to  
"to many connections".  I of course tried to up my max connections  
beyond 20, but looks like will need to up shared memory maximums.  
(which might be interesting given I am on os X. Just never done that  
since switching). So before I go about figuring all that out, are  
failures expected? and if not, any thoughts on the number of  
connections I should configure for?

Jeff
On Jan 31, 2007, at 4:20 PM, Kris Jurka wrote:

> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Jeffrey Cox wrote:
>
> >  I been working with metadata on stored procedures and discovered  
> > that I can't get parameter names via getProcedureColumns. So i  
> > checked out the source and took a look at the method. Seems that  
> > for column names, a $ is appended to the arg type count. I guess I  
> > don't know if there is a reason that the actual parameter names  
> > are not used, or its just low on the TODO list. I went ahead and  
> > updated the method return column names as stored in procargnames  
> > of pg_catalog.pg_proc. I have attached a patch.
>
> It just hasn't been updated in a while.
>
> > I honestly don't know if this is the correct mechanism to handle  
> > this (I poped into #postgres and was told to attach a patch to an  
> > email to this list), so just point me in the right direction if  
> > need be (either on how to submit the patch, or why making this  
> > change is stupid).
>
> This is exactly the place to send it.  Any chance we can also  
> convince you to add a test case and fix COLUMN_TYPE for out  
> parameters?
>
> Kris Jurka