On Friday 22 November 2002 11:55 pm, Nic Ferrier wrote:
> Message-ID: <87of8h5fdc.fsf@pooh-sticks-bridge.tapsellferrier.co.uk>
> Lines: 27
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> --text follows this line--
>
> snpe <snpe@snpe.co.yu> writes:
> > On Friday 22 November 2002 07:16 pm, Nic Ferrier wrote:
> > > snpe <snpe@snpe.co.yu> writes:
> > > > Yet another sugestion :
> > > >
> > > > When make createStatement, we haven't to do fetch - command is same
> > > > except begin; declare xxx cursor (I think that and begin will not be
> > > > required soon) When we call first ResultSet.next (or like) we call
> > > > fetch if don't rows in memory. It is way in another databases :
> > > > execute is prepare and bind (without fetch) and then is fetch JDBC
> > > > specification tell same - execute don't nothing with row
> > >
> > > JDBC spec doesn't require any particular behaviour... what we've got
> > > kinda works.
> >
> > JDBC spec requires that after executeStatement there is nothing in
> > ResultSet.
>
> No it doesn't. It requires that the result set is not positioned
> until after the first call to next().
>
> Postgresql's behaviour is quite legitimate.
>
Yes, it is legitime, but execute and fetch are separated command.
There isn't good reason for doing fetch with execute - maybe user never call fetch.
regards
Haris Peco
