Sybase NNTP forums - End Of Life (EOL)

The NNTP forums from Sybase - forums.sybase.com - are now closed.

All new questions should be directed to the appropriate forum at the SAP Community Network (SCN).

Individual products have links to the respective forums on SCN, or you can go to SCN and search for your product in the search box (upper right corner) to find your specific developer center.

Units of work lost?

4 posts in General Discussion Last posting was on 2002-11-12 17:49:47.0Z
Mike_DePetrillo Posted on 2002-11-08 14:48:34.0Z
From: Mike_DePetrillo
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 09:48:34 -0500
Newsgroups: ianywhere.public.general
Subject: Units of work lost?
Message-ID: <94F6C8F9C0A09A78005159B785256C6B.005159D085256C6B@webforums>
Lines: 24
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums.sybase.com!webforums.sybase.com!news
Xref: forums-1-dub ianywhere.public.general:447
Article PK: 2265

We have a replication setup between an ASE and ASA db with 50 remote dbs
attached to the ASA db (3 levels). Transactions that are applied to our
ASE database seem to be grouped together with other transactions when they
are applied to the 2nd level ASA database (I'm translating the ASA log to
confirm this). If a sql statement fails, it rolls back sql that was not
part of the original transaction.

Ex.
ASE:
begin tran
update table1
commit
begin tran
update table2
commit

When applied to ASA:
begin tran
update table1
update table2
commit work

How is sqlremote deciding how to group the sql statements into
transactions?


Robert Waywell Posted on 2002-11-10 15:45:38.0Z
From: "Robert Waywell" <rwaywell@ianywhere.com>
References: <94F6C8F9C0A09A78005159B785256C6B.005159D085256C6B@webforums>
Subject: Re: Units of work lost?
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 10:45:38 -0500
Lines: 50
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Message-ID: <Cv$D6INiCHA.259@forums.sybase.com>
Newsgroups: ianywhere.public.general
NNTP-Posting-Host: CPE014310004450.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com 24.102.227.16
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums.sybase.com
Xref: forums-1-dub ianywhere.public.general:445
Article PK: 2262

Grouping is on by default and is controlled by the -g switch. Note that only
the single operation/original transaction that generates the error should be
skipped. For any error other than a foreign key violation, the problem
operation will fail, but everything else in the transaction will succeed. In
the case of a Foreign Key violation, what you should see happening is that
when an error is encountered in a grouped transaction, we rollback the
grouped transaction and re-apply the operations using the original
transaction boundaries.

What version and build number are you using?

I would suggest that we follow up this thread further in the newsgroup
sybase.public.sqlanywhere.replication which is specifically focused on SQL
Remote.

--
Robert Waywell
iAnywhere Solutions
Certified SQL Anywhere Professional

<Mike_DePetrillo> wrote in message
news:94F6C8F9C0A09A78005159B785256C6B.005159D085256C6B@webforums...
> We have a replication setup between an ASE and ASA db with 50 remote dbs
> attached to the ASA db (3 levels). Transactions that are applied to our
> ASE database seem to be grouped together with other transactions when they
> are applied to the 2nd level ASA database (I'm translating the ASA log to
> confirm this). If a sql statement fails, it rolls back sql that was not
> part of the original transaction.
>
> Ex.
> ASE:
> begin tran
> update table1
> commit
> begin tran
> update table2
> commit
>
> When applied to ASA:
> begin tran
> update table1
> update table2
> commit work
>
> How is sqlremote deciding how to group the sql statements into
> transactions?
>


Mike_DePetrillo Posted on 2002-11-12 14:42:53.0Z
From: Mike_DePetrillo
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 09:42:53 -0500
Newsgroups: ianywhere.public.general
Subject: Re: Units of work lost?
Message-ID: <387326849C50BEDE0050D4AE85256C6F.005ABA3D85256C6D@webforums>
References: <94F6C8F9C0A09A78005159B785256C6B.005159D085256C6B@webforums> <Cv$D6INiCHA.259@forums.sybase.com>
Lines: 5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums.sybase.com!webforums.sybase.com!news
Xref: forums-1-dub ianywhere.public.general:435
Article PK: 2255

We are running version 8.0.0.2289....

Actually one of our rollback situations was an FK violation. It rolled
back the whole transaction, but there were statements that were rolled back
that were not part of the original transaction.


Robert Waywell Posted on 2002-11-12 17:49:47.0Z
From: "Robert Waywell" <rwaywell@ianywhere.com>
References: <94F6C8F9C0A09A78005159B785256C6B.005159D085256C6B@webforums> <Cv$D6INiCHA.259@forums.sybase.com> <387326849C50BEDE0050D4AE85256C6F.005ABA3D85256C6D@webforums>
Subject: Re: Units of work lost?
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 12:49:47 -0500
Lines: 34
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Message-ID: <9c6SfYniCHA.186@forums.sybase.com>
Newsgroups: ianywhere.public.general
NNTP-Posting-Host: 172.31.143.74
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums.sybase.com
Xref: forums-1-dub ianywhere.public.general:434
Article PK: 2252

In that case you should see that the statements were re-applied with the
original commit boundaries.

--
-----------------------------------------------
Robert Waywell
Sybase Adaptive Server Anywhere Developer - Version 8
Sybase Certified Professional

Sybase's iAnywhere Solutions

Please respond ONLY to newsgroup

EBF's and Patches: http://downloads.sybase.com
choose SQL Anywhere Studio >> change 'time frame' to all

To Submit Bug Reports: http://casexpress.sybase.com/cx/cx.stm

SQL Anywhere Studio Supported Platforms and Support Status
http://my.sybase.com/detail?id=1002288

Whitepapers, TechDocs, and bug fixes are all available through the iAnywhere
Developer Community at www.ianywhere.com/developer

<Mike_DePetrillo> wrote in message
news:387326849C50BEDE0050D4AE85256C6F.005ABA3D85256C6D@webforums...
> We are running version 8.0.0.2289....
>
> Actually one of our rollback situations was an FK violation. It rolled
> back the whole transaction, but there were statements that were rolled
back
> that were not part of the original transaction.