Re: Callablestatement's resulting resultset not scrollable

From: ron <bragustin(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Callablestatement's resulting resultset not scrollable
Date: 2006-08-02 04:05:45
Message-ID: cdde6360608012105q2b04d9deh2aa59112bb3d9dd@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-jdbc

Hi Diego,

I'm still using jdk 1.5.

May I know what version of PostgreSQL JDBC driver you've used with
jdk1.6.0-beta2-b82?
If you've switched to the b92 version of jdk, don't you think there's a need
for a corresponding update or upgrade to the PostgreSQL driver you're using
to go with that new version? The JDBC driver, afterall, is still what drives
the PostgreSQL in a Java context.

Anyway, while waiting for the scrollability feature of the
CallableStatement's resultset, I opted to work around it using
PreparedStatement to answer my current concern for a scrollable resultset.
I've used a PostgreSQL stored function and called it through a
preparedstatement.

Regards.

On 8/1/06, dgil(at)mendoza(dot)gov(dot)ar <dgil(at)mendoza(dot)gov(dot)ar> wrote:
>
> Ron:
>
> Are you using jdk 1.6.0 (mustang) ?. I got same kind of errors
> (TYPE_FORWARD_ONLY while required a non TYPE_FORWARD_ONLY) while using
> CachecRowSetImpl with jdk 1.6.0 b92. It works Ok with b82.
>
> Regards,
> Diego.
>
>

--
R. Agustin
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E-mail: bragustin(at)gmail(dot)com
ICQ #: 146807041
_______________________________________
This email contains confidential information for the sole use of the
intended
recipient/s. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact
the sender, delete this email and maintain the confidentiality of what
you may have read.

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data."
- Sherlock Holmes

In response to

Browse pgsql-jdbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Csaba Nagy 2006-08-02 14:32:54 PGStatement#setPrepareThreshold
Previous Message Oliver Jowett 2006-08-02 03:34:24 Re: JDBC Overhead