But being designed for batch updates, is Statement.SUCCESS_NO_INFO appropriate in the context of plain updates? I think the value of Statement.SUCCESS_NO_INFO is supposed to be opaque. What if it happens to be 3, for example? Client code will think three rows have been affected.
Conversely, if you plan to throw a batch update exception for all successful plain updates affecting too large amount of rows, client code is unlikely to be prepared to handle batch update exceptions for plain updates. (I feel there is also a more general usability problem with the JDBC API for batch updates expecting client code to expect exceptions to be thrown for successful executions. But I may be misunderstanding something...)
Peter
On Jan 12, 2013 10:41 AM, "Dave Cramer" <
pg@fastcrypt.com> wrote:
Well since it returns an int and it's impossible to return > 2^32 in an int then we will be returning Statement.SUCCESS_NO_INFO
Dave
