[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1094?page=comments#action_12371110 ]
A B commented on DERBY-1094: ---------------------------- > Sigh, I give up. I hope I'm not discouraging you from pursuing this work--that's certainly not my intent. You're asking good questions and I'm just trying to provide some answers--or at least, some indication as to why things are working the way they are. I appreciate your persistence here and hope I haven't deterred you. > Does this mean that JDBC 3.0 assumes SQL_ATTR_ODBC_VERSION=SQL_OV_ODBC2, > then? And what about JDBC 4.0? Does it assume SQL_OV_ODBC2 also? Umm....I don't know. I don't really know if it's valid to say "JDBC assumes ODBC version..." since, so far as I know, the only "link" between the two is that, in the past, JDBC has often picked up behavior from ODBC. But I don' t think that's a guaranteed thing and I have no idea if/how the one is dependent on the other. My guess is that they're technically independent--two different APIs to a backend server that just happen to have similar functionality--but I'll gladly stand corrected if anyone out there knows more. > But why is it 6 for TIMESTAMP, and 0 for TIME? I'm sure it is legal, but does > it make sense > to have a TIME data type that cannot have fractional seconds? Especially when > your TIMESTAMP > type can...? Again, I'm going to plead "don't know" on this one. I'm far from an ODBC expert--I just happened to do some ODBC metadata work a while back and that work ties in with some of your questions. I tried to make the ODBC queries compliant with the ODBC 3 API as I read it, and the current queries seem to satisfy the need. But there could me more to be done in this area and there are almost certainly other people out there who know more about this than I do... So pardon my incomplete answers/knowledge, I'm just providing what I know...hopefully that's more helpful than confusing... > 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 > > 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
