Re: [HACKERS] postgres and Jdbc 2.0

(moved to pgsql-jdbc)

chinni wrote:
> Hi All!
> Please note that the following functions are not implemented in the
> postgres driver
> even though they are a part of the JDBC 2.0 standard.
>
> Some of these may be party implemented, but may not be complete.

Check a current driver from jdbc.postgresql.org.

> public void setFetchDirection(int direction) throws SQLException

Implemented already.

> public boolean rowDeleted() throws SQLException
> public boolean rowInserted() throws SQLException
> public boolean rowUpdated() throws SQLException

Implemented already; you may not like the fact they always return false,
but this is accurate and consistent with what the database metadata
claims. The server does not provide a way to implement these in any
other way.

> Statement.java
> public int getFetchDirection() throws SQLException
> public void setFetchDirection(int direction) throws SQLException

Both implemented already.

> public void registerOutParameter(int parameterIndex, int sqlType,
> String typeName) throws SQLException

The underlying server does not support out parameters. This is also why
the getXXX accessors on CallableStatement are not implemented.

> Array.java
> public Object getArray(long index, int count, Map map) throws
> SQLException
> public java.sql.ResultSet getResultSet(long index, int count,
> java.util.Map map) throws SQLException

How are you obtaining the Array implementation? It's an interface.

> There are a few things which I want to know.
>
> 1) Is there anything more which I am missing wrt JDBC 2.0 and postgres.

You need to test a more recent driver.

Many of the features you see as missing are actually just unsupported by
the underlying server -- it's not something you can fix in the driver. I
don't think that JDBC2 *requires* support for many of these features so
long as the database metadata is accurate about what it claims to support.

The fetch direction is a hint only -- you can't expect particular
behaviour. There are improvements to cursor support that could be done,
but they won't change the client-visible behaviour.

> 2) If I want to add these features to JDBC driver, is there anything
> that has to go to database itself.

I don't understand the question.

-O