>>>>>>>>>>>> Andreas Korneliussen (JIRA) wrote (2005-11-08 13:03:20): > [ 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".
I have started testing with the intention of committing this patch. > > > "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 > -- Bernt Marius Johnsen, Database Technology Group, Sun Microsystems, Trondheim, Norway
pgp7aiTSqrew2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
