Re: JDBC executeUpdate() does not return the number of rows effected

Barry,

I was using Postgresql V7.1.3 and driver version 7.1-1.2.

However, last night I downloaded 7.1-1.2 again and noticed that it was a few
K larger, even though it had the exact same version number. When I tested
with the "new" 7.1-1.2 (93,011 bytes vs approx 88K), executeUpdate() *did*
return the correct row count. Go figure!? So it appears to be fixed in the
newest code base.

Thanks,

Rob

-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-jdbc-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
[mailto:pgsql-jdbc-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org]On Behalf Of Barry Lind
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 11:27 PM
To: Robert Dyas
Cc: pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [JDBC] JDBC executeUpdate() does not return the number of
rows effected

Robert,

What version of the driver and database are you using? I have code that
gets the update count back from executeUpdate(). So I suspect this may
be fixed in a more recent version.

thanks,
--Barry

Robert Dyas wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I have been using the JDBC driver for a couple of months now. The only
> limitation I have run into for my own uses is that calling executeUpdate()
> does not return the number of rows effected by update or delete
statement --
> it always returns 0.
>
> Is this a limitation of Postgresql (i.e. the backend does not provide this
> info) or a limitation of the JDBC driver?
>
> If it is not a limitation of the backend, does anyone have an idea if this
> bug would be as easy to fix as it appears on the surface?
>
> Rob
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>
>

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org