Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

RE: [INTERFACES] JDBC next() method

From: Jon Barnett <jbarnett(at)pobox(dot)com>
To: "'Herouth Maoz'" <herouth(at)oumail(dot)openu(dot)ac(dot)il>, "'pgsql-interfaces(at)hub(dot)org'" <pgsql-interfaces(at)hub(dot)org>
Subject: RE: [INTERFACES] JDBC next() method
Date: 1999-04-23 15:26:12
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-interfaces
On Tuesday, 20 April 1999 1:35, Herouth Maoz [SMTP:herouth(at)oumail(dot)openu(dot)ac(dot)il] 
> At 15:57 +0300 on 14/04/1999, Jon Barnett wrote:
> > I had expected that an empty result set would be
> > returned if the history table is empty (0 rows returned for the select),
> > and
> > would be false.  Is this an incorrect interpretation
> >on my
> > part?
> It is. In PostgreSQL, when an aggregate function is used, it always returns
> one row containing one field. If it had no values that matched the query,
> that one field is NULL.

The question is less one of "what is required to correctly interpret the result 
from the postgresql jdbc driver" and more a case of determining whether this 
result conforms to the jdbc api definitions.  To re-phrase this; if I employed 
a different JDBC driver, would I obtain the same result? For after all, the 
goal of the JDBC layer is to provide a consistent interface, independent of the 
database to which you are connecting, particularly when you can late bind the 
driver (specify the driver you want to use at run-time).

Best regards,



pgsql-interfaces by date

Next:From: JT KirkpatrickDate: 1999-04-23 19:37:07
Subject: win98 odbc problem?
Previous:From: Burg, Edmund von derDate: 1999-04-23 11:24:34
Subject: unsubscribe

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group