MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <f81c70bd-586e-79ab-d089-331696acc42a@cloud.gatewaynet.com>
 <CAB=Je-HiDQ_pSp5PTfuRUEt6WA5bNNgYWS_8Q6wUHO1qg4=RFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <d92c73eb-3f65-f455-8a30-d4d0ed71c1e0@cloud.gatewaynet.com>
In-Reply-To: <d92c73eb-3f65-f455-8a30-d4d0ed71c1e0@cloud.gatewaynet.com>
From: Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov.vladimir@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 09:03:11 +0300
Message-ID: 
 <CAB=Je-G=X8UbhjB5HF8d9WS5eZdVUgqopvsocD5_0WpxOHcAyw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Regarding useObjects
To: Achilleas Mantzios <a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com>
Cc: pgsql-jdbc@postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB%3DJe-G%3DX8UbhjB5HF8d9WS5eZdVUgqopvsocD5_0WpxOHcAyw%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

> so there was the option to change this to false and recompile

We try doing our best to keep backward compatibility both
compilation-wise and behaviour-wise.
However, we treat "private fields and methods" as private, and we do
not expect people would depend on them.
If you have to modify sources or depend on private APIs I would
suggest raising an issue or PR so it could be incorporated
into the driver itself.

Would you please provide a test case of what you are doing with PgArray?
What is exactly the sequence of JDBC calls, the actual and the
expected outcomes in your case?

The mentioned "useObjects" has been removed in
https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/pull/1194 (Refactor decoding arrays)

Vladimir