Re: PoolingDataSource executeUpdate

Kris Jurka wrote:
>
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Oliver Jowett wrote:
>
>
>>ALBERDI Ion wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What happens there is that with Connection Pooling the executeUpdate method
>>>always returns 0, and that the database is not upgraded.
>>>I'm currently forced to use the Jdbc3SimpleDataSource class (with this class
>>>the application runs perfectly) but I would like to use Connection Pools to
>>>improve the application's performances.
>>
>>I notice that the default autocommit setting in
>>org.postgresql.jdbc2.optional.ConnectionPool is false. This is the
>>opposite of the required Connection default and seems like a bug to me.
>
>
> True, but that doesn't explain why executeUpdate returns an affected row
> count of zero.

I was thinking along the lines of an insert on a separate connection not
being committed, or the insert not being visible to the update's
transaction (which will be a very long transaction if the app is
expecting autocommit..). i.e. executeUpdate() is fine, it's just that
the update sees a different set of data to what is expected by the app.

-O