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

Re: CallableStatement and getUpdateCount

From: "Albe Laurenz" <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>
To: "Kris Jurka *EXTERN*" <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>
Cc: "Sam Lawrence *EXTERN*" <sam(at)fsbtech(dot)com>,<pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: CallableStatement and getUpdateCount
Date: 2008-04-02 08:25:30
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-jdbc
Kris Jurka wrote:
> > Hmmm. getUpdateCount() is defined in
> > org/postgresql/jdbc2/ as
> >
> >        if (isFunction)
> >            return 1;
> I would guess that this code was conceived without regard to returning 
> sets.  For code that does {? = call f()} you expect the caller to fetch 
> the result using CallableStatement.getXXX() so that's why the code isn't 
> indicating that a ResultSet is returned even though there is one under the 
> hood.  The JDBC driver has no idea whether the function it's calling is 
> returning a SETOF or not, so it can't use that to determine what to return 
> for getUpdateCount.
> Perhaps we can differentiate between calls of the form {call f()} and {? = 
> call f()} ?

If I understood correctly then there *is* a result set in the case mentioned.

Would it work as desired if the two checks in getUpdateCount were reversed?

        if (result.getResultSet() != null)
            return -1;

        if (isFunction)
            return 1;

Or is there a problem I do not see?

Laurenz Albe

In response to


pgsql-jdbc by date

Next:From: Shavonne Marietta WijesingheDate: 2008-04-02 09:40:35
Subject: Re: JSP to PostgreSql
Previous:From: Guillaume SmetDate: 2008-04-02 01:04:04
Subject: Re: Re: [HACKERS] How embarrassing: optimization of a one-shot query doesn't work

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