Barry, I was using Postgresql V7.1.3 and driver version 7.1-1.2.
However, last night I downloaded 7.1-1.2 again and noticed that it was a few K larger, even though it had the exact same version number. When I tested with the "new" 7.1-1.2 (93,011 bytes vs approx 88K), executeUpdate() *did* return the correct row count. Go figure!? So it appears to be fixed in the newest code base. Thanks, Rob -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Barry Lind Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 11:27 PM To: Robert Dyas Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [JDBC] JDBC executeUpdate() does not return the number of rows effected Robert, What version of the driver and database are you using? I have code that gets the update count back from executeUpdate(). So I suspect this may be fixed in a more recent version. thanks, --Barry Robert Dyas wrote: > Hi all, > > I have been using the JDBC driver for a couple of months now. The only > limitation I have run into for my own uses is that calling executeUpdate() > does not return the number of rows effected by update or delete statement -- > it always returns 0. > > Is this a limitation of Postgresql (i.e. the backend does not provide this > info) or a limitation of the JDBC driver? > > If it is not a limitation of the backend, does anyone have an idea if this > bug would be as easy to fix as it appears on the surface? > > Rob > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
