I am afraid I do not understand your explanation. What do you mean by
"begin/end block"? I am thinking in terms of simple SQL statements like:
begin;
declare myc cursor for select * from mm_history;
fetch forward 2 in myc;
close myc;
rollback; (or if you did some update in the same transaction:
Ok, what specifically in jdbc 3.0 do people want implemented?
All of the callable statement stuff is not applicable to postgres
Dave
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Barry Lind
Sent: October 17, 2001 12:53 AM
To: Joseph Shraibman
Cc:
- Original Message -
From: Dave Cramer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: [JDBC] J2SE 1.4 and other patches
Ok, what specifically in jdbc 3.0 do people want implemented?
I personally would like the
Antonio,
Our client is going with Oracle now. So this is no longer
urgent. Thanks for the link! I will try it out next time I have a
problem.
best regards,
michael moyle
On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 05:45:58PM +0200, Antonio Fiol Bonn?n wrote:
You may want to try using the driver compiled for
To use a cursor behind the scenes would require the jdbc driver to have its own
begin/end
block. Because the connection is shared, there is nothing that prevents someone else
from
trying to execute a begin/end/commit/rollback statement that would screw up the
driver.
So it would need a
Don't you need execute cvs commands to add new files? I guess I don't know.
Barry Lind wrote:
Anyone can do that by submitting a patch. I don't see anything special
that needs to be done.
--Barry
Joseph Shraibman wrote:
Right. And a maintainer needs to make a jdbc3 direcotry and
This really doesn't have anything to do with 1.4. If you think you have
a bug, please send an email to the list with instructions on how to
reproduce (and a test case showing the problem that could be compiled
and run would be really great as well). Or even better get the source
code and
I don't like this patch. If anything I think we should remove the
dependency on ANT, not remove the dependency on make.
By requiring ANT, we provide yet another hurdle for someone wanting to
use JDBC with postgres. I would prefer that the build environment be
the same for the database as
I'm a getting a bit flustered with my old friend Postgresql. Everything
was fine and dandy until I decided I needed to use large objects.
At first, after following the documentation, I was getting InputStream not
supported as a parameter. I started looking around and found some things
in the
Given that ant is (or is becoming) the defacto standard for building
java apps I am reluctant to remove it. A number of projects simply
include the ant jar in the download.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Barry Lind
Sent: October
10 matches
Mail list logo
