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 Sat, 08 Sep 2007 20:27:03 GMT
Hi,
I have created jira issue OPENJPA-360, and attached OPENJPA-360.patch.
As soon as it passes regressions, I will commit the patch.

Catalina

On 9/8/07, Kevin Sutter <kwsutter@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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 8.1or
> > > > 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