Re: CallableStatement and getUpdateCount
| От | Albe Laurenz |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: CallableStatement and getUpdateCount |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | D960CB61B694CF459DCFB4B0128514C201F3E94E@exadv11.host.magwien.gv.at обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: CallableStatement and getUpdateCount (Kris Jurka <books@ejurka.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: CallableStatement and getUpdateCount
|
| Список | pgsql-jdbc |
Kris Jurka wrote:
> > Hmmm. getUpdateCount() is defined in
> > org/postgresql/jdbc2/AbstractJdbc2Statement.java as
> >
> > if (isFunction)
> > return 1;
>
> I would guess that this code was conceived without regard to returning
> sets. For code that does {? = call f()} you expect the caller to fetch
> the result using CallableStatement.getXXX() so that's why the code isn't
> indicating that a ResultSet is returned even though there is one under the
> hood. The JDBC driver has no idea whether the function it's calling is
> returning a SETOF or not, so it can't use that to determine what to return
> for getUpdateCount.
>
> Perhaps we can differentiate between calls of the form {call f()} and {? =
> call f()} ?
If I understood correctly then there *is* a result set in the case mentioned.
Would it work as desired if the two checks in getUpdateCount were reversed?
if (result.getResultSet() != null)
return -1;
if (isFunction)
return 1;
Or is there a problem I do not see?
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
В списке pgsql-jdbc по дате отправления: