On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 05:42:05PM +0200, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
On Tue 10 Aug 2004 00:52, Tim Bunce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Comments welcome.
=head1 DBI ROAD-MAP
9th August 2004
This document aims to provide a high level overview of the future direction of the
DBI.
It
At 5:42 PM +0200 8/10/04, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
Unsure if this is the right spot, but in writing the DBD I found the
unidirection from handle to handle quite restrictive.
Statement handles know what database handle they belong to, but database
handles don't know what statement handles are opened
At 5:42 PM +0200 8/10/04, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
Unsure if this is the right spot, but in writing the DBD I found the
unidirection from handle to handle quite restrictive.
Statement handles know what database handle they belong to, but database
handles don't know what statement handles are opened
Merijn wrote:
HP-UX 11i (11.11) + perl-5.8.5-dor + DBI-1.43 + DBD-CSV-0.21
Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed
---
t/40bindparam.t 281 3.57% 14
Failed 1/14 test scripts,
Thanks much. I'll be returning from travel early next week and will look into this
then.
--
Jeff
-Original Message-
From: Jan Dubois [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 02:01 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ''Tim Bunce'', [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re:
Someone has logged a bug against DBD::Informix because it wasn't
cleaning up properly as a handle was destroyed. It turns out that the
statement-level active flag was not set. But, simply setting it on
means DBD::Informix runs foul of all sorts of issues during destroy.
Of course it's a bug
