Do you have any examples of 1)? IMHO a driver should care of converting to the right database representation. Could it be a bug in the driver?

Maybe the solution for this is to provide a standard interface for querying table metadata (list of columns with their types)?

Should database specific types be provided by the driver package? Not every database has all the types and sometimes they are different between databases (or even different versions of the same database).

@kostya-sh I address the issue of types in this description. I even have an implementation that shows this works.

I don't want table meta-data, nor do I wish for separate API to get that meta-data. If you're talking CRUD queries, that might be fine. I'm talking about larger queries that do business logic and the queries types aren't necessarily represented in any table anywhere.

In case of PostgreSQL it seems that specifying types for parameters is redundant as the database itself provides this information to the dirver (based on the source of github.com/lib/pq).

@kostya-sh You are correct. Prepared statements infer types and send those back to the client. As such you probably wouldn't utilize this in that case. Also postgresql text is compatible with varchar, unlike other systems where it maters. Now I shall get all my clients and client's vendors to use postgresql and we'll be set...

@kardianos, I wasn't suggesting to switch all your clients to PostgreSQL ;) My intention was to collect use cases that are not possible to implement correctly withput specifying parameter types.

After a bit more digging I found that there are cases when PostgreSQL cannot infer parameter types. For example the following SQL cannot be currently executed using database/sql:

select date_trunc('hour', $1)

This is because there are two date_trunc functions in PostgreSQL and without type information it is impossible to choose the function.

I think is better leave input parameter types to database drivers as they vary among different database venders.

We could also create a database/sql/commontypes package, but that could well be a third-party package. The only benefit I can see, that a commontypes package over driver specific, is that for code portability across different database. But that will depends on how your database drivers convert between database types and common types, and that might suit your needs. A better approach will be write a migrator that traversal the AST and substitute between driver types as your needs.

The problem here is that we can't really pass custom types to Exec() and Query() now. In database/sql, all args are converted to database/sql/driver.Value then pass to the underlying database driver, and Value only allow some primitive types. What the default converter does is auto-dereference to those values, and even we implement the Valuer interface with our custom type, it will rejected by IsValue() check in database/sql. The only way to by pass this check is use a prepared statement and implement ColumnConverter interface and the type should not implement Valuer.

The solution is let the custom types in database drivers implement the Valuer interface by return its value as is. Then let IsValue() accept those types by defined a new interface in database/sql/drivers, that IsValue() can call to check arguments' type of Exec() and Query() is acceptable by underlying drivers. And all the custom types should also implement this interface.

For output types, if needed, it could implement the Scanner interface. But I think it will be much rare than input types as converting database types to Go types is much clear than converting Go types to database types that could have length and precision requirements.

The interface added in database/sql/driver can be something like:

type InputValue interface {
    Validate() bool
}

Then IsValue() should call v.Validate() to validate custom types. And all custom types that can be a input parameter type should implement this interface and Valuer. This should works for both driver specific types and common types.

@bradfitz Could you write why the driver.IsValue exists and specifically the value those calls add in the sql package convert.go driverArgs function? It looks like both of the calls in convert.go are on the driver.ColumnConverter path and as such it could be the driver's responsibility to check driver.IsValue after checking the driver's custom types. Am I misreading or misunderstanding something? Thanks.

I think they were meant for drivers to use for validation. Or maybe it was an internal detail and we didn't have internal packages at the time. I forget.

You can update the docs on it.

@bradfitz I would actually prefer to remove the sql/driver uses of it, and request drivers use it to validate their own types. At least, I think that would be one of the required types to support custom database types. I just don't see the value of this call. If the driver doesn't support the parameter input type, let the driver throw the error.

The second option would be to add a new interface for the driver.Stmt, interface would be in charge of calling IsValid after checking custom driver types. So we could retain the current behavior until the driver adds the checks themselves.

No POC yet. Thoughts?

Well, the idea was we wanted to make it easier to write drivers and not require drivers to deal with every one of Go's integer type sizes and signedness. That's why there's only int64 not uint16, int32, etc.

So we still want to convert the common things (like uint16 to int64) for drivers. But if a driver wants to opt-in to other types (likeuint64` or slices of things or arbitrary things like GPS coordinates), that's fine.

Getting column types has been submitted to master.
I'm closing this issue as the remaining points are contained in #13567 and #16235 .