cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

DBRemote aborting on error causing missing message

Former Member
3,333

Is DBRemote supposed to abort when error occurs while executing messages? I am using SA12 and with some errors while receiving and executing messages it stops. Leaving the rest of the files intact. This is causing a missing message on the next replication (which is really not the case, but caused by the deleted processed files and the exist of the non processed files).

Is there an option to cancel this behaviour or is this a bug?

As far as I can remember, ASA9 version of dbRemote did not abort the receival like this.

Running in batchmode, here's an example of the log output:

I. 2012-05-08 13:43:41. SQL Remote Message Agent Version 12.0.1.3554
I. 2012-05-08 13:43:41. 
I. 2012-05-08 13:43:41. Copyright © 2001-2012, iAnywhere Solutions, Inc.
I. 2012-05-08 13:43:41. Portions copyright © 1988-2012, Sybase, Inc. All rights reserved.
I. 2012-05-08 13:43:41. Use of this software is governed by the Sybase License Agreement.
I. 2012-05-08 13:43:41. Refer to http://www.sybase.com/softwarelicenses.
I. 2012-05-08 13:43:41. 
I. 2012-05-08 13:43:41. Received message from "parentnode" (599-0602694329-0602694329-0)
I. 2012-05-08 13:43:41. Received message from "parentnode" (599-0602694329-0602694329-1)
I. 2012-05-08 13:43:41. Received message from "parentnode" (599-0602694329-0602694329-2)
I. 2012-05-08 13:43:41. Received message from "parentnode" (599-0602694329-0602694329-3)
I. 2012-05-08 13:43:41. Received message from "parentnode" (599-0602694329-0602694329-4)
I. 2012-05-08 13:43:41. Received message from "parentnode" (599-0602694329-0602694329-5)
I. 2012-05-08 13:43:41. Received message from "parentnode" (599-0602694329-0602694329-6)
I. 2012-05-08 13:43:41. Received message from "parentnode" (599-0602694329-0602694329-7)
I. 2012-05-08 13:43:41. Received message from "parentnode" (599-0602694329-0602694329-8)
I. 2012-05-08 13:43:41. Received message from "parentnode" (599-0602694329-0602694329-9)
I. 2012-05-08 13:43:41. Received message from "parentnode" (599-0602694329-0771199013-10)
I. 2012-05-08 13:43:41. Applying message from "parentnode" (599-0602694329-0602694329-0)
I. 2012-05-08 13:43:41. Applying message from "parentnode" (599-0602694329-0602694329-1)
I. 2012-05-08 13:43:41. Applying message from "parentnode" (599-0602694329-0602694329-2)
I. 2012-05-08 13:43:41. Applying message from "parentnode" (599-0602694329-0602694329-3)
I. 2012-05-08 13:43:42. Applying message from "parentnode" (599-0602694329-0602694329-4)
I. 2012-05-08 13:43:42. Applying message from "parentnode" (599-0602694329-0602694329-5)
I. 2012-05-08 13:43:42. Applying message from "parentnode" (599-0602694329-0602694329-6)
E. 2012-05-08 13:43:42. SQL statement failed: (-143) Column 'app_cl_no' not found
E. 2012-05-08 13:43:42. Skipping:
E. 2012-05-08 13:43:42. SELECT id, app_cl_no FROM DBA.accrual_fixed
E. 2012-05-08 13:43:42. Receiving messages failed
I. 2012-05-08 13:43:43. Execution completed

Message 7-10 are still present in the inbound folder when SQL Remote is completed. On next replication these are read and message 0-6 are treated as missing.

Accepted Solutions (0)

Answers (1)

Answers (1)

VolkerBarth
Contributor

I would think the attempt to replicate data for a non-existing column sounds like a design error and should be clarified as such (and should only happen in a test environment). - As such, I don't know if this should stop the replication. Other statements causing errors (e.g. PK duplicates, missing FKs and the like) are skipped AFAIK, but don't stop replication. We generally use the REPLICATION_ERROR option to log errors but I don't think that this changes the way errors are handled itself.

(Yes, this is some kind of "know-it-all" advice, sorry!).

Besides that, have you tried to circumvent the error by one of these methods documented here? (Again, I would strongly recommend to test such issues in a test environment.)

Former Member
0 Kudos

The comment from @Volker Barth is answering my question.

VolkerBarth
Contributor
0 Kudos

Glad it just happened in a test environment:)