openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Kevin Sutter" <kwsut...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: DB2 and "FOR UPDATE OF" clause
Date Sat, 08 Sep 2007 13:32:24 GMT
Thanks, Catalina!

On 9/7/07, catalina wei <catalina.wei@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Patrick & Kevin,
> Both of you are right.
> On the other hand, we do have a testcase to test FOR UPDATE OF string
> where
> we assert SQL string for "FOR UPDATE OF optimize for 1 row"  under
> org.apache.openjpa.jdbc.TestSelectForUpdateOverride.
>
> I mislead you guys by only looking at the testcase without verifying it
> with
> right version of DB2.
> I doubt that the testcase ever ran successfully for DB2 type:
> *
>
> db2ISeriesV5R3OrEarlier   or   db2UDBV81OrEarlier
> * I will have someone who has the right version of DB2 to run the test,
> and
> will post the result shortly.
> Sorry for the confusion that I have caused.
>
> Catalina
>
> On 9/7/07, Kevin Sutter <kwsutter@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Catalina,
> >
> > On 9/6/07, Patrick Linskey <plinskey@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > FWIW, I was also seeing an exception complaining about the 'FOR UPDATE
> > > OF' clause. I was surprised by the syntax, as I would have expected it
> > > to say 'FOR UPDATE OF <something>'.
> >
> >
> > I agree with Patrick on  this question.  According to the db2 manual,
> the
> > "FOR UPDATE OF" clause is supposed to be followed by a list of
> column(s).
> > Otherwise, the clause should just be "FOR UPDATE".  I looked at the sql
> > generation code and I didn't see where we are supplying any column
> > identifiers.  Am I missing something?
> >
> > For reference:
> >
> >
> http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/dzichelp/v2r2/topic/com.ibm.db29.doc.sqlref/xf6a19.htm#xf6a19
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Kevin
> >
> > -Patrick
> > >
> > > On 9/6/07, catalina wei <catalina.wei@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi Patrick,
> > > > That SQL is correct syntax if you are running DB2 UDB version 8.1 or
> > > earlier
> > > > and the isolation level is set pessimistic.
> > > >
> > > > If you are not running the said DB2 version and still seeing "FOR
> > UPDATE
> > > OF"
> > > > string, then we have a problem in DB2Dictionary.
> > > >
> > > > Catalina
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 9/6/07, Patrick Linskey <plinskey@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm seeing SQL like so:
> > > > >
> > > > > SELECT  t0.ID, t0.VERSN, t0.STRINGFIELD FROM SIMPLEPERSISTENTCLASS
> > t0
> > > > > FOR UPDATE OF
> > > > >
> > > > > Is this valid DB2 SQL? I'm using a DB2 database that returns
> > SQL08016
> > > > > from a call to getDatabaseProductVersion(). I'm guessing that the
> > > > > checks for the FOR UPDATE clauses are getting tripped up
> somewhere.
> > > > > Any suggestions about what it should be for this version of DB2?
> > > > >
> > > > > -Patrick
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Patrick Linskey
> > > > > 202 669 5907
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Patrick Linskey
> > > 202 669 5907
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message