freetds AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: FreeTDS Development Group
List archive
- From: James Cameron <cameron AT stl.dec.com>
- To: TDS Development Group <freetds AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
- Subject: Re: Odd problem round 2.
- Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 13:58:45 +1100
Brian! Do we do bit fields properly?
Tim Uckun wrote:
> OK I tried it with each field by itself and it segfaults on the "done]
> [bit] NULL" field.
This is terribly significant.
> All other fields pull in fine. I tried with a couple of other tables
> and the same story. If the select statement returns a bit field AND
> any of the bit fields contains a 1 or 0 then it segfaults.
Well, bit fields tend to only contain 1 or 0.
> It returns a 104 error message for each row in the query which
> contains a bit field that is not null.
I think this is just FreeTDS not implementing bit fields. But I haven't
checked. Perhaps those with intimate knowledge of the code could
comment?
Tim: I suggest you CONVERT the bit fields to something else.
--
James Cameron (james.cameron AT compaq.com)
http://quozl.linux.org.au/ (or) http://quozl.netrek.org/
-
Odd problem round 2.,
Tim Uckun, 01/02/2001
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: Odd problem round 2., James Cameron, 01/02/2001
- Re: Odd problem round 2., Tim Uckun, 01/02/2001
- Re: Odd problem round 2., Michael Peppler, 01/02/2001
- Re: Odd problem round 2., James Cameron, 01/02/2001
- Re: Odd problem round 2., D. J. Hagberg, 01/02/2001
- Re: Odd problem round 2., Tim Uckun, 01/03/2001
- Re: Odd problem round 2., James K. Lowden, 01/03/2001
- Re: Odd problem round 2., Tim Uckun, 01/03/2001
- Re: Odd problem round 2., Lowden, James K, 01/04/2001
- Re: Odd problem round 2., Brian Bruns, 01/21/2001
- Re: Odd problem round 2., Brian Bruns, 01/21/2001
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.