Re: [HACKERS] insert/update/delete statements returning a query response

OK. I will fix the jdbc driver in 7.3 to handle this case.
Unfortunately since the JDBC spec doesn't let me return anything other
than a row count for inserts/updates/deletes I will just be discarding
the query result.

thanks,
--Barry

Tom Lane wrote:

> Barry Lind <barry(at)xythos(dot)com> writes:
>
>>Is this behavior intended in the backend? The problem is that when you
>>create a rule on an object that calls a stored function and invoke that
>>rule on an insert/update/delete statement your insert/update/delete
>>statement will now return a query result to the front end over the FE/BE
>>protocol. (I am not sure this is the exact senerio, but something
>>similar).
>>
>
> If the rule adds SELECT operations to the basic statement then those
> SELECT(s) will return results to the frontend. I think this is
> appropriate, perhaps even necessary for some applications of rules.
>
>
>>This means that the user now needs to perform a
>>executeQuery() call when using these insert/update/delete statements in
>>JDBC because the JDBC driver isn't able to accept a query response when
>>issuing a insert/update/delete call.
>>
>
> I would regard that as a JDBC bug: it should be able to accept a query
> response at any time. It shouldn't have preconceived ideas about what
> a given query will produce.
>
> It probably would be a good idea to add some kind of "CALL" or "PERFORM"
> statement to the backend, having the same semantics as SELECT except
> that the query result is discarded instead of being shipped to the
> client. However, this is largely syntactic sugar with maybe a tiny
> bit of performance-improvement rationale. JDBC should be able to cope
> with all the cases that libpq does, and libpq handles this scenario
> with aplomb.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>