Re: Batch Update updatecounts when error happens

Makes sense. Sorry about the confusion. I was writing some code on my
local machine (laptop running Linux & pgsql) that I was also testing on
our production box (Solaris with IBM DB2). I assumed they'd behave the
same. Guess I need some "if isDB2()" logic in my error handler code.

Thanks for the reply,
Padraic

* Barry Lind <barry(at)xythos(dot)com> [Sep 1 8:10pm]
> The behavior in the driver that you are seeing is correct according to
> the jdbc spec. Your suggested changes actually violate the jdbc spec.
> From section 6.1.1 of the JDBC2.1 Core API:
>
> "JDBC drivers that do not continue processing after a failure never
> return -3 in an update count array. Drivers of this type simply return a
> status array containing an entry for each command that was processed
> successfully."
>
> thanks,
> --Barry
>
> Padraic Renaghan wrote:
>
> >Sorry for talking with myself again...
> >
> >So I tried the code change below. Got slightly better results:
> >
> >updateCounts[0]=1
> >updateCounts[1]=0
> >
> >I really think that second entry should be a -3. So I added one more
> >line to that block so it now becomes:
> >
> >result[i]=-3;
> >int len=i+1;
> >int[] resultSucceeded = new int[len];
> >System.arraycopy(result, 0, resultSucceeded, 0, len);
> >
> >This worked best. I now get
> >
> >updateCounts[0]=1
> >updateCounts[1]=-3
> >
> >So if folks think that is a valid change, I'll whip up a patch file
> >and send it back to this list for further consideration.
> >
> >Thoughts?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Padraic
> >
> >* Padraic Renaghan <list(at)renaghan(dot)com> [Aug 28 12:12pm]:
> >
> >
> >
> >>I think I might have figured it out. I think there might be a bug in the
> >>Postgresql driver. Specifically in the jdbc2/Statement.java file, the lines in
> >>executeBatch() that read:
> >>
> >> int[] resultSucceeded = new int[i];
> >> System.arraycopy(result, 0, resultSucceeded, 0, i);
> >>
> >>should really be:
> >>
> >> int len = i+1;
> >> int[] resultSucceeded = new int[len];
> >> System.arraycopy(result, 0, resultSucceeded, 0, len);
> >>
> >>I think that would do the trick. I'll now working on getting a modified version
> >>built so I can test it.
> >>
> >>Think I'm on the right track? wrong track?
> >>
> >>
> >>Thanks,
> >>Padraic
> >>
> >>Quoting Padraic Renaghan <list(at)renaghan(dot)com>:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I'm having trouble with the error handling of the batch update feature
> >>>of the
> >>>JDBC 2.0 Postgresql driver. I do not see the standard behavior of
> >>>returing a -3
> >>>for the statement that failed.
> >>>
> >>>In my example I insert mutliple rows in a single batch into a table. All
> >>>the
> >>>inserts have the same key value, which causes the second insert to fail
> >>>with a
> >>>duplicate key error.
> >>>
> >>>I get thrown back the BatchUpdateException which has the updateCounts
> >>>array
> >>>which I access via getUpdateCounts(). That array contains a single
> >>>entry,
> >>>updateCounts[0]=1. I am not seeing the -3 entry to indicate the stmt
> >>>that
> >>>failed. According to my assumptions about how JDBC 2.0 batch updates are
> >>>
> >>>supposed to work (and according to the JDBC--Postgresql compatability
> >>>web page)
> >>>I was hoping to see the updateCounts array contain:
> >>>updateCounts[0]=1
> >>>updateCounts[1]=-3
> >>>
> >>>I'm currently using Postgresql 7.2 and the JDBC driver installed with
> >>>the
> >>>Postgresql distributed rpm. Specifically I'm using jdbc7.2dev-1.2.jar
> >>>
> >>>Any help would be appreciated.
> >>>
> >>>Thanks
> >>>Padraic
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>--
> >>Padraic Renaghan /pad-rik ren-a-han/
> >>padraic(at)renaghan(dot)com
> >>IM: abuhaina (AOL/Yahoo/MSN) 9437815 (ICQ)
> >>http://renaghan.com/pcr/
> >>lure -> 390sig006(at)renaghan(dot)com <- don't use
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

--
Padraic Renaghan /pad-rik ren-a-han/
padraic(at)renaghan(dot)com
IM: abuhaina (AOL/Yahoo/MSN) 9437815 (ICQ)
http://renaghan.com/pcr/
lure --> 123sig987(at)renaghan(dot)com <-- don't use