Catalina, On 9/6/07, Patrick Linskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 >
