Prev: WBI Monitor
Next: The column name as com.ibm.db2.jcc.b.dc@1d5b3a
From: Serge Rielau on 18 Dec 2007 11:47
2803stan(a)gmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 17, 9:13 pm, Serge Rielau <srie...(a)ca.ibm.com> wrote:
>> Mark A wrote:
>>> Is 9.5 GA yet?
>> Hmpf!
>>
>>> If not, the DB2 Express-C version should probably be
>>> considered beta code. Even if it is GA, any problems with the free version
>>> of DB2 Express-C version should be reported on the DB2 Express-C forum (on
>>> IBM website) and I suspect that the IBM people who run the forum will
>>> forward that to development.
>> Yes. Express C has forum support.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Serge
>> --
>> Serge Rielau
>> DB2 Solutions Development
>> IBM Toronto Lab
>
> Reply to Serge and Mark:
>
> <<From Mark A. -- should be reported on the DB2 Express-C forum (on
> IBM website) and I suspect that the IBM people who run the forum will
> forward that to development. It probably will not hurt to do some
> name
> dropping when you post on that forum (Serge). >>
> <<and answered from Serge: Yes. Express C has forum support.>>
>
> So who forwards this, and how does one get results?
The forum is moderated by three guys just as (in) competent as I am:
Ryan, Ian and Raul.

> C'mon guys, I'm nobody. You're somebody. Why are the somebodies not
> doing something for the nobody?!?
Ryan, Ian, and Raul are the paid somebodies to help your nobodyness.

Cheers
Serge
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 Solutions Development
IBM Toronto Lab
From: Mark A on 19 Dec 2007 00:08
"Mark A" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message news:...
> Sorry, my DB2 databases process real-time credit card authorizations. I
> don't keep up with brand new releases.

I see the problem now. 9.5 was not issued as a fixpack to 9.1, as was the
case for 7.2 (fixpack 3 for 7.1) and 8.2 (fixpack 7 for 8.1). I was
expecting to see 9.5 as a V9.1 fixpack, so I assumed it was still beta.

I will be upgrading to V9 in about 14 months (after the 2008 shopping season
has concluded), so it looks like I will have to choose between V9.1 and 9.5
if they stay on a dual track.

My guess is that some in IBM were pushing for 9.5 to be released as 10.1,
but a decision was made to offer it for free to those with a V9 maintenance
contract, hence the 9.5 designation.


From: Serge Rielau on 19 Dec 2007 07:08
Mark A wrote:
> I will be upgrading to V9 in about 14 months (after the 2008 shopping season
> has concluded), so it looks like I will have to choose between V9.1 and 9.5
> if they stay on a dual track.
>
> My guess is that some in IBM were pushing for 9.5 to be released as 10.1,
> but a decision was made to offer it for free to those with a V9 maintenance
> contract, hence the 9.5 designation.
Mark,

With DB2 9 the team has switched to a "no function in fixpack" policy.
That is the reason that even a dot-release receives its own code-stream.
Further you will see that that more releases will be available in
parallel (right now: 8.2, 9.1, 9.5) to support conservative companies
like yours.

As of the naming of releases: It's a black art I don't even pretend to
fathom.

Cheers
Serge
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 Solutions Development
IBM Toronto Lab
From: 2803stan on 19 Dec 2007 12:23
Dear Folk,

Well, this has been a trip!

Discovered the problem. The stored procedure call was not fully
qualified! That is, instead of calling "GEORGE"."MYPROC" I was only
calling "MYPROC"

How did this work for so long? Because the user was always signing on
as "GEORGE," so db2 automatically attached that to the name of the SP.

(There still is a residual problem -- why was the error message not
more specific?)

Thaks for your help and sympathy.

SS
From: Serge Rielau on 19 Dec 2007 13:08
2803stan(a)gmail.com wrote:
> Dear Folk,
>
> Well, this has been a trip!
>
> Discovered the problem. The stored procedure call was not fully
> qualified! That is, instead of calling "GEORGE"."MYPROC" I was only
> calling "MYPROC"
>
> How did this work for so long? Because the user was always signing on
> as "GEORGE," so db2 automatically attached that to the name of the SP.
>
> (There still is a residual problem -- why was the error message not
> more specific?)
You are talking about the -444 rc='4' error?
TYour explanation does not compute, at least not entirely.
If a function is not found you get a -440.
To make this Jibe with your observation there must have been ANOTHER
function (namely the one with specificname: SQL071201165900590) that was
declared, but was not (properly) implemented.

The -440 situtation woudl have pointed you teh right way:
* The user's SQL path does not contain the schema to which the desired
function or method belongs, and an unqualified reference was used.

To reach the -444 DB2 has successfully resolved and is now concerned to
find the implementation. So the message is geared towards that.

Cheers
Serge

--
Serge Rielau
DB2 Solutions Development
IBM Toronto Lab
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: WBI Monitor
Next: The column name as com.ibm.db2.jcc.b.dc@1d5b3a