[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-231?page=all ]
Andreas Korneliussen updated DERBY-231: --------------------------------------- Attachment: DERBY-231.diff DERBY-231.stat The update includes a new comment in CursorNode.java, regarding SQL compliance, and it also includes new tests for positioned updates and postioned deletes on queries not including "FOR UPDATE". > "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 > Assignee: Andreas Korneliussen > Priority: Minor > Attachments: DERBY-231.diff, DERBY-231.stat, 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