[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-231?page=comments#action_12319792 ]
Rick Hillegas commented on DERBY-231:
-------------------------------------
Roy Lyseng has traced the tortuous path through the SQL spec which allows this
syntax:
part 3 - "Call level interface" chapter 6.50 Prepare, says that the statement
text can (among other things) be a <dynamic select statement> which is defined
in part 5 - "Host language bindings" chapter 15.6 Prepare statement as a
<cursor specification>, which is defined in part 2 "Foundation", chapter 14.1
Declare cursor as:
<cursor specification> ::=
<query expression> [ <order by clause> ] [ <updatability clause> ]
and
<updatability clause> ::=
FOR { READ ONLY | UPDATE [OF <column name list> ] }
> "FOR UPDATE" required for updatable result set to work
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-231
> URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-231
> Project: Derby
> Type: Improvement
> Components: SQL
> Versions: 10.0.2.1
> Reporter: Dag H. Wanvik
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: fff
>
> To get an updatable result set, the JDBC 3.0 spec, section 14.2.4
> "Modifying ResultSet Objects" states:
> "ResultSet objects with concurrency CONCUR_UPDATABLE can be updated
> using ResultSet objects".
> In addition, Derby requires the SQL SELECT statement to have a "FOR
> UPDATE" clause for updates to be allowed. This may be a usability issue, as
> many examples, e.g. in "JDBC API tutorial and reference and reference"
> book and the JDBC 3.0 Specification (14.2.4.1) do not include a "FOR
> UPDATE" clause in the SQL SELECT.
> Mamta Satoor says:
> "Derby implements the JDBC updatable resultset by using the existing
> updatable cursor implementation. And in order to do that, it requires
> that the SELECT statement should include the FOR UPDATE clause. One
> can change the Derby implementation so that it does not require FOR
> UPDATE clause to piggyback on updatable cursor implementation."
> Dan DeBrunner says:
> "Technically I wonder if this is covered by the JDBC standard, I see
> nothing in the JDBC 3.0 that states any requirements for the SQL
> statement for an updateable result set. I know the JDBC tutorial book
> has some guidelines as to what will typically work, but isn't it up to
> the database engine to define what works here?
> Having said that I think that not requiring the FOR UPDATE would be a
> useful improvement."
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
