Re: AbstractJdbc2Array - another patch

[Marek Lewczuk <newsy(at)lewczuk(dot)com>]

Kris Jurka pisze:
> That doesn't sound right to me because we won't be able to put every 
> possible type (think about user defined) into the Oid class.  Perhaps 
I was thinking only about base types (they are already in Oid class), 
because it will work much faster if they will be statically written in 
Oid class.

> getResultSet should convert getBaseTypeName() to oid instead of 
> getBaseType?  Then you just need to know if your output is an array or 
> not (by checking isMultiDimensional) to know whether you want the oid 
> for type or _type.
I still think that we should add base type arrays into Oid class - it 
will work much faster and will be appropriate cause Oid class already 
contains base types, so it is logical to put there base type arrays too. 
For user defined types I would provide a way to fetch oid from pg_type - 
but for now user defined types are not supported. However, if you really 
think that we should fetch oid for every array type then I'm able to do 
it but in my opinion we should stick with Oid class for now (only for 
base types).

Regards,
ML