Re: jdbc bug/feature?

Marko,

You are correct. It was a copy-paste error. I will fix it up today.
Thanks for the quick code review.

--Barry

Marko Štrukelj wrote:
>
> I think the code is still buggy. Specifically:
>
>
> The following lines do not restore state:
>
> //restore state of statement
> String[] m_sqlFragments = l_origSqlFragments;
> Object[] m_binds = l_origBinds;
> String[] m_bindTypes = l_origBindTypes;
>
>
> You are allocating new local variables here and you are setting them
> instead of inherited variables. I'm sure it's a copy-paste typo :)
> Should be like this:
>
> this.m_sqlFragments = l_origSqlFragments;
> this.m_binds = l_origBinds;
> this.m_bindTypes = l_origBindTypes;
>
>
>
> regards,
>
> -Marko
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Barry Lind [mailto:blind(at)xythos(dot)com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 9:08 AM
> > To: Marko Štrukelj
> > Cc: 'pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org'
> > Subject: Re: [JDBC] jdbc bug/feature?
> >
> >
> > Marko,
> >
> > I checked in a fix for this problem. It should appear in 7.3RC2 this
> > weekend.
> >
> > thanks,
> > --Barry
> >
> >
> > Marko Štrukelj wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > There is a bug (I say) or a lack of proper functionality in
> > JDBC driver
> > > regarding batch updates.
> > >
> > > The following code is expected to work by some library that
> > I use and it
> > > does work with inet tds driver for M$ SQL server. It
> > however does not
> > > work with the latest jdbc from cvs or anything older than
> > that either.
> > >
> > >
> > > PreparedStatements st = c.prepareStatement("insert into my_table
> > > (field1, field2) values (?, ?)");
> > >
> > > // we have say 30 inserts to do
> > > Iterator it = inserts.iterator();
> > > int i=0;
> > > while(it.hasNext()) {
> > >
> > > // there is a maximum batch size of 15, so we must
> > periodically
> > > execute it
> > > if(i==batchMax) {
> > > st.executeBatch();
> > > i=0;
> > >
> > > // the problem - after this call a
> > PreparedStatement is
> > > empty and consequtive binds fail
> > > }
> > >
> > > Object [] binds = (Object [])it.next();
> > > st.setString(binds[0]);
> > > st.setString(binds[1]);
> > > st.addBatch();
> > > i++;
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Upon some research I discovered the problem and found a very simple
> > > solution:
> > >
> > > In org.postgresql.jdbc2.AbstractJdbc2Statement:
> > >
> > > public int[] executeBatch() throws SQLException
> > > {
> > > System.out.println("### executeBatch");
> > > if (batch == null)
> > > batch = new Vector();
> > > int size = batch.size();
> > > int[] result = new int[size];
> > > int i = 0;
> > >
> > > // >>> added
> > > // save m_binds and m_sqlFragments because
> > > executeUpdate(String) will destroy them
> > > String [] oldFrags = m_sqlFragments;
> > > Object [] oldMBinds = m_binds;
> > > // <<
> > >
> > > try
> > > {
> > > for (i = 0;i < size;i++)
> > > result[i] =
> > > this.executeUpdate((String)batch.elementAt(i));
> > >
> > > }
> > > catch (SQLException e)
> > > {
> > > int[] resultSucceeded = new int[i];
> > > System.arraycopy(result, 0,
> > resultSucceeded, 0, i);
> > >
> > > PBatchUpdateException updex =
> > > new
> > > PBatchUpdateException("postgresql.stat.batch.error",
> > >
> >
> > > new Integer(i), batch.elementAt(i), resultSucceeded);
> > >
> > > updex.setNextException(e);
> > >
> > > throw updex;
> > > }
> > > finally
> > > {
> > > batch.removeAllElements();
> > > // >> added
> > > // restore m_binds and m_sqlFragments
> > > m_sqlFragments = oldFrags;
> > > m_binds = oldMBinds;
> > > // <<
> > > }
> > > return result;
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Please consider this as a bug, and patch it in cvs. I did
> > not test this
> > > very well, so the described patch may possibly cause some
> > incosistencies
> > > somewhere - the people who wrote that class will know best.
> > It does work
> > > for my case though.
> > >
> > >
> > > And thanks for PostgreSQL, I've just started using it and I love it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > - Marko
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of
> > broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
> >
>