Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

freetds - Re: [freetds] rpc better: now only broken

freetds AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: FreeTDS Development Group

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "NamoAmituofo" <shian AT kmspks.org>
  • To: <freetds AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [freetds] rpc better: now only broken
  • Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:59:56 -0000

unsubscribe quote AT thedailyenlightenment.com

WithPalmsTogether _/|\_ Amituofo.shian
----- Original Message -----
From: "ZIGLIO Frediano" <Frediano.Ziglio AT vodafoneomnitel.it>
To: <freetds AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 4:36 PM
Subject: RE: [freetds] rpc better: now only broken

> >
> > James,
> >
> > marker 253 is, as Freddy says, just the 0xfd END token.
> >
> > Once again, I've reproduced the problem, and I think we're making
> > significant progress.
> > From the dump, I see we're getting back a meaningful response
> > at least...
> >
> > 2002-11-26 15:12:57.669289 calling dbrpcsend
> > Sending packet @ 2002-11-26 15:12:57.670453
> > 0000  03 01 00 1f 00 00 01 00  06 00 23 00 74 00 30 00  
> > |........ ..#.t.0.|
> > 0010  30 00 32 00 32 00 00 00  00 00 26 de ad be ef     
> > |0.2.2... ..&....|
> >
> >
> > 2002-11-26 15:12:57.671224 calling dbsqlok
> > 2002-11-26 15:12:57.671861 in dbsqlok()
> > Received header @ 2002-11-26 15:12:57.672428
> > 0000  04 01 00 11 00 46 01 00                            |.....F..|
> >
> >
> > Received packet @ 2002-11-26 15:12:57.672964
> > 0000  fd 02 00 00 00 00 00 00  00                        |........ .|
> >
> >
> > 2002-11-26 15:12:57.673473 dbsqlok() marker is 253
> > 2002-11-26 15:12:57.674137 dbsqlok() found end token
> > 2002-11-26 15:12:57.674552 inside tds_process_end() more_results = 0,
> > was_cancelled = 0
> > 2002-11-26 15:12:57.675009 dbsqlok() end status was error
> >
> > We appear to have gotten back a valid "error" status in the
> > done token.
> > That's the two byte integer "0x02 0x00" (in little endian)
> > following the
> > "0xfd"
> >
> > No accompanying error message though. Hmmmm. need to look at
> > what we're
> > sending I guess.
> > I'll have a look at that packet we send in a bit more detail...
> >
> > Bill
> >
>
> This patch solve RPC problem but open other possible problems...
> - dynamic do not want column names on data
> - we do not use column_namelen (is this correct?)
> - correct to use column_flags? Perhaps flags are different in TDS7/TDS5?
>
> freddy77
>
> =================================
> "STRICTLY PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL
>
> This message may contain confidential and proprietary material for the sole
> use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is
> strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact
> the sender and delete all copies.
> The contents of this message that do not relate to the official business of
> our company shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it."
>
> =================================
>  
>
>



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page