You mean something like `treat( cast(x as some_db_type) as String)`?
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:12 AM Christian Beikov <christian.beikov(a)gmail.com>
So during parsing you try to lookup the castTarget and if it
found, just pass through? If you pass it through, what would be the type of
I'd like to present an idea I just had. How about we reuse the "TREAT"
function/operator for doing these "casts" to named types. Applying the
operator does not necessarily cause a SQL "cast" i.e. if the expression is
a select item and the JDBC driver supports converting a value to the
desired type automatically, there is no need for a cast. The main
difference to a "cast" function would be, that the expression type will be
set to the desired type, whereas the "cast" function will set the type to
"unknown" i.e. requiring the user to use the treat operator around the
cast. The cast function will then only ever be used for the pass-through
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Am 30.05.2017 um 18:00 schrieb Steve Ebersole:
How about this rule then?
// should allow either
// - named cast (IDENTIFIER)
// - JavaTypeDescriptorRegistry (imported) key
// - java.sql.Types field NAME (coded cast synonym - field's value)
// - "pass through"
// - coded cast (INTEGER_LITERAL)
// - SqlTypeDescriptorRegistry key
: IDENTIFIER | INTEGER_LITERAL
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:16 AM Steve Ebersole <steve(a)hibernate.org>
> Yes, ultimately these need to resolve to SqlTypeDescriptor. So perhaps
> we allow both.
> What I just want to get out of is the open-ended-ness. Non-determinism
> is bad. E.g., like what you just mentioned... how should the parser
> understand that "TEXT" `cast(x as TEXT)` is a database type name versus
> Java class name versus something else? Structurally we cannot - one String
> is syntactically the same as any other String.
> So do we just accept some policy of "well if we don't understand it
> just pass it through to the database"? To me that's just a cop-out. Not
> to mention that it invariably leaves the door open to non-portability. If
> instead we limited this to just Java types (JavaTypeDescriptorRegistry
> keys) and JDBC type codes (SqlTypeDescriptorRegistry keys) we can fully
> support this in a portable manner. Now that does lead to a question for
> databases which make the silly decision (looking at you pgsql) to map
> multiple types to the same JDBC type code.
> As much as possible I think we ought to not be relying on the database to
> validate these kinds of things. An error from the database is going to be
> much less descriptive as to what exactly is wrong compared to a validation
> done by Hibernate.
> Not sure the correct answer, just some thoughts.
> An option is to allow 3 types of cast targets:
> 1. Java type name we can resolve against the
> 2. A JDBC type (either by code or name) we can resolve against the
> 3. Any other text we can resolve against the Dialect as a "valid SQL
> I'm kind of leery of (3), but if everyone else agrees it is important to
> allow that non-portability then I will consider it. And keep in mind that
> this is really only needed for databases like pgsql to handle the multiple
> types it maps to a single JDBC type code... all other cases can (and
> should) be handled by (1) and (2).
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:36 AM Christian Beikov <
> christian.beikov(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sounds good, although I guess there might be cases when ONLY this
>> approach won't work that well.
>> I am specifically thinking about casts to the various character types
>> that are available in the different DBMS. A cast to "String" might
>> most of the time, but we should still have an option to cast to CLOB,
>> TEXT or whatever other datatype a DBMS offers.
>> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>> *Christian Beikov*
>> Am 29.05.2017 um 16:17 schrieb Steve Ebersole:
>> > Currently casting in HQL is under-defined and open-ended (and therefore
>> > pretty inconsistent). What does that mean? Well, what is a valid cast
>> > target in HQL? There really is not a defined
>> > answer to that.
>> > I'd like to start formalizing the answer to this.
>> > Specifically, I am thinking this should be defined around
>> > JavaTypeDescriptor. So that we'd understand any Java type registered
>> > with JavaTypeDescriptorRegistry, and specifically any that properly
>> > implements `#getJdbcRecommendedSqlType` (using the Dialect to resolve
>> > cast target in the generated SQL).
>> > Anyone have objections to this? Thoughts?
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > hibernate-dev mailing list
>> > hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
>> hibernate-dev mailing list