Re: JDBC-94: "Multiple resultsets were returned by query" in query end with "; "

I agree with Christopher. After upgrading to the latest JDBC driver our
system started throwing these exceptions. It's not hard for us to fix (I
can update our own framework code), but it seems unnecessary and is
likely more difficult for others to address.

Here's a simplified example of SQL-generatation code that runs afoul of
this change: in our system, a logical insert at one layer may map to
multiple database inserts (e.g., to a primary database table plus one or
more property tables). The code generating the insert SQL terminates
each INSERT with ";\n", for convenience and human readability. As a
result, the final INSERT can end with a dangling "\n" that 1202 now
rejects. Of course, we could duplicate a subsequent check and/or special
case the last INSERT to remove the "\n", but the current code is cleaner.

Adam

On 10/7/2015 5:42 AM, Christopher BROWN wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Developers that use the driver via a framework (open-source, in-house)
> might not be in a position to change SQL, compared with developers
> that are able to modify hand-written SQL, so it's probably best to
> tolerate it by discarding any trailing semi-colon (with or without any
> trailing whitespace) in the parser.
>
> I've also encountered coding practices (coding-style "standards")
> where semi-colons are expected (some people just love terminating all
> statements, not just Java, with semi-colons, even when it's not
> strictly necessary (e.g.: JavaScript).
>
> So, my preference would be to maintain backwards-compatibility for
> others, even if I don't have such an issue myself.
>
> --
> Christopher
>
>
> On 7 October 2015 at 14:34, Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com
> <mailto:pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>> wrote:
>
> This is a very good question, but lots of people cut and paste SQL
> into code ... sometimes the ; gets in there.
>
> Behaviour of previous version is important, but in this case It
> may not be justified.
>
> Anyone else have an opinion ?
>
> Dave Cramer
>
> dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca
> http://www.credativ.ca
>
> On 7 October 2015 at 08:30, Vladimir Sitnikov
> <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com <mailto:sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com>>
> wrote:
>
> I wonder why pgjdbc would want to silently ignore that user error?
> Is "behavior of previous version" a sole justification?
>
> I've drafted https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/pull/386 to
> cover that.
>
> Vladimir
>
>
>