OnDemand User Group

Support Forums => MP Server => Topic started by: akstrom on May 28, 2019, 05:56:35 AM

Title: DB2 table is not been shown in the thick client (V9.5.0.7)
Post by: akstrom on May 28, 2019, 05:56:35 AM

I have an AG with the internal DB2 name MCA.
MCA has 6 tables : MCA1, MCA2, MCA3, MCA4, MCA5 and MCA6.
When searching in the Client (thick Client installed on the computer) the customer and I cannot find any documents from MCA5, but we can find documents from all of the other tables (of course I have only searched for a few documents in all of the tables)
 
It looks like the table MCA5 has lost contact with the client, but we find all the documents when we search directly inside DB2
 
How can we “connect” the table again to CMOD so it can be searchable again for the client ?

Title: Re: DB2 table is not been shown in the thick client (V9.5.0.7)
Post by: Ed_Arnold on May 28, 2019, 09:10:55 AM

That's a new one on me.

If no helpful replies soon, a PMR is in order.

Ed

Title: Re: DB2 table is not been shown in the thick client (V9.5.0.7)
Post by: Stephen McNulty on May 29, 2019, 03:55:42 AM

is there anything different with permissions for table MCA5 compared to the others?

Title: Re: DB2 table is not been shown in the thick client (V9.5.0.7)
Post by: Justin Derrick on May 30, 2019, 07:06:36 AM

Sounds like the record for MCA5 in the arsseg table is damaged / deleted / incorrect.

-JD.

Title: Re: DB2 table is not been shown in the thick client (V9.5.0.7)
Post by: akstrom on May 30, 2019, 07:13:46 AM

I opened up a PMR and got back a hole bunch of db2 Select command that gave me a document that looks like is the problem (a none valid date even though it looks ok.)
We are askin the customer to chec the date and if it is ok by them we have a command to change it to a valid date.

Thanks for all answers !

Title: Re: DB2 table is not been shown in the thick client (V9.5.0.7)
Post by: Justin Derrick on May 30, 2019, 07:16:39 AM

Yeah, we had a line-of-business system send us files with the date 2115-12-31.  It caused us a LOT of problems - obviously, the users said the documents were "missing", and suddenly the performance of the Application Group was terrible.  We check our loads for dates more than a year into the future now.

-JD.