snpe <snpe@snpe.co.yu> writes:
> I add AbstractJdbc3Statement missing method from AbstractJdbc2Statement and
> it work.I don't test complete, but simple command on table with 1 mil. rows
> work fine.
Ok.
> > > 2) method nic_execute create query like :
> > > BEGIN; DECLARE JDBC_CURS_1 CURSOR FOR select * from tab FETCH FORWARD 100
> > > FROM JDBC_CURS_1;
> > > I add ";" before FETCH
> >
> > Hmmm... that's odd. Does the statement you supply have a ";" on the
> > end of it? My patch only works if it does.
>
> You send this :
> BEGIN; DECLARE JDBC_CURS_1 CURSOR FOR select * from tab FETCH FORWARD 100
> FROM JDBC_CURS_1;
> I change and send :
> BEGIN; DECLARE JDBC_CURS_1 CURSOR FOR select * from tab; FETCH FORWARD 100
> FROM JDBC_CURS_1;
Yes. But the reason I send:
DECLARE JDBC_CURS_1 CURSOR FOR select * from tab FETCH FORWARD 100 FROM JDBC_CURS_1;
is because the SQL statement you supply is _supposed_ to end with a
";". The code for the above is actually doing:
DECLARE JDBC_CURS_1 CURSOR FOR $userquery FETCH FORWARD 100 FROM JDBC_CURS_1;
where $userquery is what comes in from the client code, eg:
Statement st = con.createStatement();
ResultSet rs = con.executeQuery("select * from tab;");
then "select * from tab;" is inserted as $userquery. It must always
end with ";" because that's how PGSQL's normal query processing works.
So if your code does this:
Statement st = con.createStatement();
ResultSet rs = con.executeQuery("select * from tab");
it won't work. AFAIK it won't work with unpatched PGSQL JDBC either
(please correct me if I'm wrong).
Nic
