db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Daniel John Debrunner (JIRA)" <derby-...@db.apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (DERBY-570) wrong java.sql.Type id implied for LONG VARCHAR FOR BIT DATA
Date Fri, 03 Feb 2006 18:01:04 GMT
    [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-570?page=comments#action_12365100 ] 

Daniel John Debrunner commented on DERBY-570:
---------------------------------------------

I think the layout of the LONG VARCHAR FOR BIT DATA should match the other types, for example
see LONG VARCHAR

http://db.apache.org/derby/docs/10.1/ref/rrefsqlj15147.html

See the syntax, Java type and JDBC type are sections with bold headings.

The compile time type for LONG VARCHAR FOR BIT DATA would be byte[]



> wrong java.sql.Type id implied for LONG VARCHAR FOR BIT DATA
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>          Key: DERBY-570
>          URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-570
>      Project: Derby
>         Type: Bug
>   Components: Documentation
>     Versions: 10.1.1.0
>     Reporter: Rick Hillegas
>  Attachments: derby570.diff, rrefsqlj30118.html
>
> The Datatypes section of the Reference Manual says that LONG VARCHAR FOR BIT DATA is
identical to VARCHAR FOR BIT DATA but does not give a jdbc type, implying that LONG VARCHAR
FOR BIT DATA has the same jdbc type as VARCHAR FOR BIT DATA, i.e., VARBINARY. This section
should say that LONG VARCHAR FOR BIT DATA has the following jdbc type: LONGVARBINARY.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
   http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
   http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira


Mime
View raw message