Tuesday, November 19, 2002 2:54 PM
> To: Jeff Urlwin; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: :ODBC bug (just for the archives)
>
>
> Just to confirm I installed http://xmlproj.com/PPM/DBD-ODBC.ppd
> which has an
> ODBC.pm file with a version of 0.43. I reproduced the problem before
&g
4.00.6200.00.
Ronald Schmidt
- Original Message -
From: "Jeff Urlwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ronald Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 2:00 PM
Subject: RE: :ODBC bug (just for the archives)
>
ill resolve your problem, but...
Thanks,
Jeff
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jeff Urlwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Ronald Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 9:44 PM
> Subject: RE: :O
November 18, 2002 9:44 PM
Subject: RE: :ODBC bug
> Ronald,
>
> > I don't know if this is the right place to post DBI/DBD bug
> > reports. If there is a better place please let me know. The
> > small program below results in an error that reads:
>
> It's the ri
Ronald,
> I don't know if this is the right place to post DBI/DBD bug
> reports. If there is a better place please let me know. The
> small program below results in an error that reads:
It's the right place. Exactly!
>
> The instruction at "0x1f8fe002" referenced memory at
> "0x1f8fe002". The
BC, but again, since you can't tell which versions
and you are "a bit hazy" on what you did, makes it more difficult to
pinpoint the problem.
Jeff
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Thorn [mailto:davet@;fysh.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 6:25 AM
> To
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 12:47:31PM -0400, Jeff Urlwin wrote:
>
> I'd check on your versions of FreeTDS and unixODBC...
So FreeTDS is broken, not DBD::ODBC, despite isql not showing the same
behaviour? If so i'll go and see if i can report a bug in that.
--
dave thorn | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Regards,
Jeff
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Thorn [mailto:davet@;fysh.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 12:16 PM
> To: Jeff Urlwin
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: :ODBC bug?
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 12:11:43PM -0400, Jeff Urlwin wrote:
> &
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 12:11:43PM -0400, Jeff Urlwin wrote:
> Right, but I only see one row in the message, per query. Shouldn't there be
> two?
I think you're mis-parsing it. The DURATION and PERFORMER bits are in
different rows to each other.
> | DURATION|
> |
> | PERFOR
Dave Thorn wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 11:48:01AM -0400, Jeff Urlwin wrote:
Unfortunately, that's not readable. I only see the one row.
Well, it shows "RICHARD G. MITCHELL" for PERFORMER, and nothing for
DURATION, using the same queries as posted in code earlier.
Just to warn you, isql
Right, but I only see one row in the message, per query. Shouldn't there be
two?
Jeff
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Thorn [mailto:davet@;fysh.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 11:56 AM
> To: Jeff Urlwin
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: :ODBC bu
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 11:48:01AM -0400, Jeff Urlwin wrote:
> Unfortunately, that's not readable. I only see the one row.
Well, it shows "RICHARD G. MITCHELL" for PERFORMER, and nothing for
DURATION, using the same queries as posted in code earlier.
--
dave thorn | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unfortunately, that's not readable. I only see the one row.
Jeff
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 10:54:18AM -0400, Jeff Urlwin wrote:
> > >
> [FreeTDS]
> >
> > If you are using FreeTDS, then it's irrelavent what version of the ODBC
> > driver is running on the server side. It's probably just a c
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 10:54:18AM -0400, Jeff Urlwin wrote:
> >
[FreeTDS]
>
> If you are using FreeTDS, then it's irrelavent what version of the ODBC
> driver is running on the server side. It's probably just a client side
> problem.
>
> What I suggest is:
> - determining which (if any)
>
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 10:24:39AM -0400, Jeff Urlwin wrote:
> >
> > Sorry -- brain problem, this morning. I was going to say, how about MS
> > Query (not analyzer, but the query that comes with MS office which just
> > queries the db), then I looked further to see you were on
> Linuxcan y
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 10:24:39AM -0400, Jeff Urlwin wrote:
>
> Sorry -- brain problem, this morning. I was going to say, how about MS
> Query (not analyzer, but the query that comes with MS office which just
> queries the db), then I looked further to see you were on Linuxcan you
> give us
Dave Thorn wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 09:54:03AM -0400, Jeff Urlwin wrote:
[SQLFetch()]
The first time through, we see (snipped from trace below)
fetch col#4 SC_VALUE datalen=0 displ=256
fetch col#4 SC_VALUE datalen=19 displ=256
The second time through, I see:
fetch co
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 09:54:03AM -0400, Jeff Urlwin wrote:
> >
> [SQLFetch()]
> > The first time through, we see (snipped from trace below)
> >
> > > fetch col#4 SC_VALUE datalen=0 displ=256
> > > fetch col#4 SC_VALUE datalen=19 displ=256
> >
> > The second time through, I see:
> > > fetch
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 03:18:08PM +0100, Nick Gorham wrote:
> Dave Thorn wrote:
> >
> >This is where my knowledge goes a bit flakey. It works in MS Query
> >Analyzer, which, according to someone here, isn't using ODBC.
> Are you certain of that,
no :)
--
dave thorn | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dave Thorn wrote:
This is where my knowledge goes a bit flakey. It works in MS Query
Analyzer, which, according to someone here, isn't using ODBC.
Are you certain of that, last time I looked, it did use ODBC.
--
Nick Gorham
Easysoft Limited http://www.easysoft.com
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 09:54:03AM -0400, Jeff Urlwin wrote:
>
[SQLFetch()]
> The first time through, we see (snipped from trace below)
>
> > fetch col#4 SC_VALUE datalen=0 displ=256
> > fetch col#4 SC_VALUE datalen=19 displ=256
>
> The second time through, I see:
> > fetch col#4 SC_VALUE datale
Ok -- keeping the long trace here...what I see here is that SQLFetch()
(which is supposed to update the field information) doesn't seem to be doing
that. The first time through, we see (snipped from trace below)
> fetch col#4 SC_VALUE datalen=0 displ=256
> fetch col#4 SC_VALUE datalen=19 displ=
Hope this helps
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 08:54:42AM -0400, Jeff Urlwin wrote:
>
> >
> > Not sure about this one, but it appears that my version
> > ($DBD::ODBC::VERSION = '0.40';) doesn't deal with nulls properly.
> Please upgrade to .45_18, if possible.
Not possible at the moment.
> Also, post
Dave
Please *always* post to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Not sure about this one, but it appears that my version
> ($DBD::ODBC::VERSION = '0.40';) doesn't deal with nulls properly.
Please upgrade to .45_18, if possible.
Also, post code, if possible. With select * you usually can't assume the
column
24 matches
Mail list logo
