[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1094?page=all ]
Dyre Tjeldvoll updated DERBY-1094:
----------------------------------
Attachment: derby-1094.v2.diff
Thanks for catching this. No, the comment about soft upgrade is incorrect. It
is old cruft from when I started working on this issue and had an incorrect
understanding of how upgrade worked.
I'm attaching a new patch v2 (just the diff file) with a more appropriate
comment.
> Make DatabaseMetaData.getProcedureColumns() JDBC4 compliant
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-1094
> URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1094
> Project: Derby
> Type: Sub-task
> Components: JDBC
> Versions: 10.2.0.0
> Reporter: Dyre Tjeldvoll
> Assignee: Dyre Tjeldvoll
> Fix For: 10.2.0.0
> Attachments: derby-1094.preliminary.diff, derby-1094.v1.diff,
> derby-1094.v1.stat, derby-1094.v2.diff, derbyall_report.v1.txt
>
> The result set returned by getProcedureColumns() must be extended with 7
> additional columns in JDBC 4.0; COLUMN_DEF, SQL_DATA_TYPE, SQL_DATETIME_SUB,
> CHAR_OCTET_LENGTH, ORDINAL_POSITION, IS_NULLABLE and SPECIFIC_NAME. The
> returned result set should be ordered by PROCEDURE_SCHEMA, PROCEDURE_NAME and
> SPECIFIC_NAME
--
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
