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.
Nic
