On 10/15/10 15:08, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:

> 15.10.2010 12:35, Alex Peshkoff wrote:
>> Dimitry, did you check it yourself? Looks like not. It returns 0 first
>> time and 'request synchronization error' second time. The only problem I
>> see is that 100 is not returned on second call instead 'request
>> synchronization error'.
> Sure I didn't check. I was talking about the case when fetch receive data from ordinary
> select, for example. If 100 is returned as a result of definite packet, the only question
> left - why EXECUTE PROCEDURE doesn't generate this packet.
>

Because instead it returns 'request synchronization error'. For me this
looks like a bug.
What we started to discuss is 'Is the fact that isc_dsql_execute()
agrees to work with EXECUTE PROCEDURE a bug or documented behavior?'
It happened that in 2.5.0 EXECUTE PROCEDURE can't be executed by
isc_dsql_execute()...