openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "catalina wei" <catalina....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: DB2 and "FOR UPDATE OF" clause
Date Fri, 07 Sep 2007 21:10:07 GMT
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