| From: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com>, Merlin Göttlinger <megoettlinger(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mike Christensen <mike(at)kitchenpc(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL specific datatypes very confusing for beginners who use wrappers around JDBC |
| Date: | 2014-01-29 16:47:18 |
| Message-ID: | 52E93096.2050600@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 01/29/2014 08:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On 01/29/2014 02:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> I wish ORMs would go away sometimes too, and I recognise that there are
>> certain kinds of broken and stupid that it makes no sense to cater to. I
>> just don't think this is one of them - this problem is universal, I
>> can't think of an ORM that *doesn't* have it, and it's created by
>> PostgreSQL, not the ORMs.
>
> Uh, no, it's created by ORMs that haven't heard of type extensibility.
> The reason they don't have this problem with other databases is exactly
> because those other databases don't have type extensibility.
Agreed. An ORM that has tackled this issue is SQLAlchemy. It has the
concept of database dialects and uses that in hand with the extendable
sqlalchemy.types to deal with database specific types.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)gmail(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pedro Salgueiro | 2014-01-29 17:22:48 | Re: Continuous archiving and restore questions |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-01-29 16:29:07 | Re: PostgreSQL specific datatypes very confusing for beginners who use wrappers around JDBC |