Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-6081-apmail-openjpa-dev-archive=openjpa.apache.org@openjpa.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-openjpa-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 58093 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2007 20:28:04 -0000
Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2)
  by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 7 Sep 2007 20:28:04 -0000
Received: (qmail 3951 invoked by uid 500); 7 Sep 2007 20:27:58 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-openjpa-dev-archive@openjpa.apache.org
Received: (qmail 3924 invoked by uid 500); 7 Sep 2007 20:27:57 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@openjpa.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:dev-help@openjpa.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@openjpa.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@openjpa.apache.org>
List-Id: <dev.openjpa.apache.org>
Reply-To: dev@openjpa.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@openjpa.apache.org
Received: (qmail 3915 invoked by uid 99); 7 Sep 2007 20:27:57 -0000
Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 07 Sep 2007 13:27:57 -0700
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.0 required=10.0
	tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of kwsutter@gmail.com designates
 209.85.146.176 as permitted sender)
Received: from [209.85.146.176] (HELO wa-out-1112.google.com) (209.85.146.176)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 07 Sep 2007 20:27:54 +0000
Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id m28so707787wag
        for <dev@openjpa.apache.org>; Fri, 07 Sep 2007 13:27:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
        bh=9AlEd8zdYPLc3p16FMCppPIMUSFdqHroM5Fv5OWlUKc=;
        b=e5JkE7rpIYR6HvNP5DkjeEaE1H/WD6jJlKfSzBBsWkcsI4sok3ZqJqc/XsljcSG/HBKnGoVznn+IGOs0F+8xu8qwVEugDzH23DnXfMmHMCHm4JSQ7OGgvjlhs1Ihy2QMAl/xq7opp1sE/gi6vF8X60ghdPJm79SNootKWU7nj94=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
        b=EJG/7OLfnrFfmFRcwHnfvgoVijFlIhEaUxupd4tO/I+H6220/mcbDYthSo7nVjd5ANKTSxCx6mZ9x4e6va5vNTfxlCT+6CvQGty8eCsSAnIDq0KrEniXeKC8eoSgwzv5sZewVNkHZJaJYVeJn9AlcbpCqzOxLQQq+frAzgnLOL8=
Received: by 10.115.17.1 with SMTP id u1mr1264454wai.1189196853037;
        Fri, 07 Sep 2007 13:27:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.75.15 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Sep 2007 13:27:32 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <89c0c52c0709071327n71e66a09m570c0bb03e65da51@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 15:27:32 -0500
From: "Kevin Sutter" <kwsutter@gmail.com>
To: dev@openjpa.apache.org
Subject: Re: DB2 and "FOR UPDATE OF" clause
In-Reply-To: <7262f25e0709061409o1b43b153r6675e4c8cf7aa0e@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_3628_30888589.1189196853033"
References: <7262f25e0709061328r221c4eaav9fa0aaa2750a2c97@mail.gmail.com>
	 <f374e8990709061341u45019780h893725f6f2a37730@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7262f25e0709061409o1b43b153r6675e4c8cf7aa0e@mail.gmail.com>
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

------=_Part_3628_30888589.1189196853033
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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
>

------=_Part_3628_30888589.1189196853033--