Author: Robert Sample
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 11:28 pm (GMT 5.5)
No, the issue is that you have NO idea how DB2 works. Until the commit is complete, the record is NOT in the table at all -- it is only potentially there. Even using WITH UR, the record may not exist since a ROLLBACK could be done at any point.
The bottom line is that you either need to fix the design so the read occurs after the records are committed, or stop complaining on this forum about the normal and usual behavior of DB2. Since the process updating the record could issue a ROLLBACK at any time, relying upon data read WITH UR is incorrect -- period. The SQLCODE 100 could be due to a ROLLBACK, and that would be normal behavior.
_________________
TANSTAAFL
The first rule of code reuse is that the code needs to be worth re-using.
"We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: premature optimization is the root of all evil." -- Donald Knuth
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 11:28 pm (GMT 5.5)
| Quote: |
| Issue is here that though the record is present in the table |
The bottom line is that you either need to fix the design so the read occurs after the records are committed, or stop complaining on this forum about the normal and usual behavior of DB2. Since the process updating the record could issue a ROLLBACK at any time, relying upon data read WITH UR is incorrect -- period. The SQLCODE 100 could be due to a ROLLBACK, and that would be normal behavior.
_________________
TANSTAAFL
The first rule of code reuse is that the code needs to be worth re-using.
"We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: premature optimization is the root of all evil." -- Donald Knuth