db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Knut Anders Hatlen (JIRA)" <derby-...@db.apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (DERBY-1094) Make DatabaseMetaData.getProcedureColumns() JDBC4 compliant
Date Sun, 23 Apr 2006 20:30:06 GMT
    [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1094?page=comments#action_12375902 ] 

Knut Anders Hatlen commented on DERBY-1094:
-------------------------------------------

The patch looks good to me, but I have one question. The comment in metadata.properties says

  "New name so that it will get picked up during soft upgrade."

whereas the comment in EmbedDatabaseMetaData.java says

  "The query was given a new name to allow the old query to be used by ODBCMetaDataGenerator."

Are both of these comments correct? If so, what's the issue with soft upgrade?

> 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, derby-1094.v1.diff, derby-1094.v1.stat, derbyall_report.v1.txt
>
> 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


Mime
View raw message