Re: Question on syscat.keycoluse.colseq

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • Lennart
    #1

    Re: Question on syscat.keycoluse.colseq

    On Jun 27, 10:31 am, Lennart <Erik.Lennart.J ons...@gmail.co mwrote:
    [...]
    The other day I stumbled upon an error. The foreign keys
    are working as expected, but syscat.keycolus e.colseq indicates
    otherwise(I'm aware that syscat.referenc es can be used instead, this
    is more of a nice to know thing)
    Hmm, on second thought. Looking in:

    SQL Reference Volume 1, Version 8. (havent checked 9.5 yet) in the
    comment on syscat.referenc es it says:

    FK_COLNAMES:"Li st of foreign key column names. Warning: This column
    will be removed in the future.Use SYSCAT.KEYCOLUS E for this
    information."

    PK_COLNAMES: "List of parent key column names. Warning: This column
    will be removed in the future. Use SYSCAT.KEYCOLUS E for this
    information."

    But as shown in my earlier post, KEYCOLUSE.COLSE Q does not necessarily
    reflect the colorder in the key. Reflections anyone?


    /Lennart

    [...]

    Tags: None
    • Lennart
      #2
      Re: Question on syscat.keycolus e.colseq

      On Jun 27, 3:26 pm, "Dave Hughes" <d...@waveform. plus.comwrote:
      [...]
      >
      Oh dear. I'd suggest opening a PMR for this - looks like a bug to me.
      >
      Thanks for taking the time Dave. I will open a PMR and post back
      whatever the outcome is. Always nice to have someone else's opinion
      before rushing ahead and opening a PMR.


      Thanks
      /Lennart

        Comment

        • Lennart
          #3
          Re: Question on syscat.keycolus e.colseq

          On Jun 27, 4:18 pm, Lennart <Erik.Lennart.J ons...@gmail.co mwrote:
          On Jun 27, 3:26 pm, "Dave Hughes" <d...@waveform. plus.comwrote:
          [...]
          >
          >
          >
          Oh dear. I'd suggest opening a PMR for this - looks like a bug to me.
          >
          Thanks for taking the time Dave. I will open a PMR and post back
          whatever the outcome is. Always nice to have someone else's opinion
          before rushing ahead and opening a PMR.
          >
          FYI, We have opened a PMR on this. IBM admitted that it is likely a
          bug, but since it is not critical to us we agreed to lower the
          severity of this PMR to 4. If anyone thinks is more urgent than that
          and want the PMR number as a reference, contact me via email,


          /Lennart

            Comment

            Previous template Next
            Working...