PostgreSQLDialect

ANSI SQL defines the LIMIT clause to be in the form LIMIT offset, limit. Does this dialect require us to bind the parameters in reverse order?

Do we need to drop constraints before dropping tables in this dialect?

The syntax used to add a column to a table (optional).

Completely optional cascading drop clause

Typically dialects which support sequences can create a sequence with a single command. This is convenience form of getCreateSequenceStrings(String) to help facilitate that.

Dialects which support sequences and can create a sequence in a single command need *only* override this method. Dialects which support sequences but require multiple commands to create a sequence should instead override getCreateSequenceStrings(String).

Get any fragments needing to be postfixed to the command for temporary table creation.

Command used to create a temporary table.

Retrieve the command used to retrieve the current timestamp from the database.

Typically dialects which support sequences can drop a sequence with a single command. This is convenience form of getDropSequenceStrings(String) to help facilitate that.

Dialects which support sequences and can drop a sequence in a single command need *only* override this method. Dialects which support sequences but require multiple commands to drop a sequence should instead override getDropSequenceStrings(String).

Get the string to append to SELECT statements to acquire locks for this dialect.

Get the FOR UPDATE OF column_list fragment appropriate for this dialect given the aliases of the columns to be write locked.

The syntax used during DDL to define a column as being an IDENTITY of a particular type.

Get the select command to use to retrieve the last generated IDENTITY value for a particular table

Apply s limit clause to the query.

Typically dialects utilize variable limit clauses when they support limits. Thus, when building the select command we do not actually need to know the limit or the offest since we will just be using placeholders.

Here we do still pass along whether or not an offset was specified so that dialects not supporting offsets can generate proper exceptions. In general, dialects will override one or the other of this method and getLimitString(String, int, int).

The class (which implements IdentifierGenerator) which acts as this dialects native generation strategy.

Comes into play whenever the user specifies the native generator.

The fragment used to insert a row without specifying any column values. This is not possible on some databases.

Get the select command used retrieve the names of all sequences.

Get the string to append to SELECT statements to acquire WRITE locks for this dialect. Location of the of the returned string is treated the same as getForUpdateString.

Given a callable statement previously processed by registerResultSetOutParameter(CallableStatement, int), extract the ResultSet from the OUT parameter.

Workaround for postgres bug #1453

Generate the select expression fragment that will retrieve the next value of a sequence as part of another (typically DML) statement.

This differs from getSequenceNextValString(String) in that this should return an expression usable within another statement.

Generate the appropriate select statement to to retrieve the next value of a sequence.

This should be a "stand alone" select statement.

Get the string to append to SELECT statements to acquire WRITE locks for this dialect. Location of the of the returned string is treated the same as getForUpdateString.

Whether this dialect have an Identity clause added to the data type or a completely separate identity data type

Should the value returned by getCurrentTimestampSelectString() be treated as callable. Typically this indicates that JDBC escape syntax is being used...

Registers an OUT parameter which will be returning a ResultSet. How this is accomplished varies greatly from DB to DB, hence its inclusion (along with getResultSet(CallableStatement)) here.

Does this dialect support a way to retrieve the database's current timestamp value?

Does this dialect support empty IN lists?

For example, is [where XYZ in ()] a supported construct?

Expected LOB usage pattern is such that I can perform an insert via prepared statement with a parameter binding for a LOB value without crazy casting to JDBC driver implementation-specific classes...

Part of the trickiness here is the fact that this is largely driver dependent. For example, Oracle (which is notoriously bad with LOB support in their drivers historically) actually does a pretty good job with LOB support as of the 10.2.x versions of their drivers...

Does this dialect support identity column key generation?

Does this dialect support some form of limiting query results via a SQL clause?

Does the dialect support propagating changes to LOB values back to the database? Talking about mutating the internal value of the locator as opposed to supplying a new locator instance...

For BLOBs, the internal value might be changed by: setBinaryStream(long), setBytes(long, byte[]), setBytes(long, byte[], int, int), or truncate(long).

For CLOBs, the internal value might be changed by: setAsciiStream(long), setCharacterStream(long), setString(long, String), setString(long, String, int, int), or truncate(long).

NOTE : I do not know the correct answer currently for databases which (1) are not part of the cruise control process or (2) do not supportsExpectedLobUsagePattern().

Does this dialect support FOR UPDATE in conjunction with outer joined rows?

Does this dialect support "pooled" sequences. Not aware of a better name for this. Essentially can we specify the initial and increment values?

Does this dialect support sequences?

Does this dialect support temporary tables?

Does this dialect support `count(distinct a,b)`?

Is it supported to materialize a LOB locator outside the transaction in which it was created?

Again, part of the trickiness here is the fact that this is largely driver dependent.

NOTE: all database I have tested which supportsExpectedLobUsagePattern() also support the ability to materialize a LOB outside the owning transaction...

Does this dialect support UNION ALL, which is generally a faster variant of UNION?

The SQL literal value to which this database maps boolean values.

Should LOBs (both BLOB and CLOB) be bound using stream operations (i.e. setBinaryStream(int, InputStream)).

Overloaded form of getCreateSequenceString(String), additionally taking the initial value and increment size to be applied to the sequence definition.