Hello again guys,
I found a way to use pdm_publish with BD replication(boxi offline) without delete that replication, only stopping that.
With the replication online, you will recive the READPAST error during the pdm_publish.
Before PDM_PUBLISH, you need to stop the replication agent:
With the Agent stopped, insert the var SQL_NO_DIRTY_READS:
Now, you can use PDM_PUBLISH without recive the READPAST error.
After this, disable that variable:
And start the Agent.
Tks to EduardoDiersmann and Sandra_Antunes.
@echo off rem ####################################################################### rem Simple Windows command to change to $NX_ROOT\bin and run pdm_publish rem ####################################################################### setlocal set NX_TEMP_CMD=%TEMP%\cd_nx.cmd nx_env -d NX_ROOT | pdm_gsub / \ > %NX_TEMP_CMD% CALL %NX_TEMP_CMD% echo pushd %NX_ROOT%\bin > %NX_TEMP_CMD% call %NX_TEMP_CMD% if ERRORLEVEL 1 goto :error set /p REP_DISABLED="DB Replica needs to be disabled before publishing, continue? (Y/N): " if %REP_DISABLED% == Y ( rem install option to avoid SQL READPAST error produced by DB replica pdm_options_mgr -c -s SQL_NO_DIRTY_READS -v 1 -a pdm_option.inst && pdm_perl .\pdm_publish.pl %1 %2 %3 %4 %5 %6 %7 %8 && pdm_options_mgr -c -s SQL_NO_DIRTY_READS -v 1 -a pdm_option.deinst echo You can now reactivate DB replica ) ELSE ( echo pdm_publish aborted by administrator goto :exit ) if ERRORLEVEL 1 goto :pdm_publish_error popd goto :exit :error echo Unable to cd to $NX_ROOT\bin echo Please do this manually and then issue the command echo pdm_perl .\pdm_publish.pl :pdm_publish_error echo pdm_publish execution failed exit /b 1 :exit del %NX_TEMP_CMD%
Hey Rianne,
Please ignore my previous comment. My apologies.
Though NO_DIRTY_READS was being referred to, it does look like SQL_NO_DIRTY_READS is still the correct one. Meaning what you have in the document is correct, no changes needed.
Thank you !
_R
Rianne,
Based on the source code, the option seems to be:
NO_DIRTY_READS and not SQL_NO_DIRTY_READS.
Everything else should be correct otherwise though. Would this be a change that you could make?
Thank you _R
Edited my comment above and put a strikethrough so please do not get misled by my previous wrong suggestion. Its still readable, but makes it hard :-)
Thanks for the feedback Rianne. I'll request the original tecdoc to be updated with this info!
Sandra