I have just been shown a log of a rollforward on a 2.6 system that had
just been patched. The log showed 8 warnings about "Illegal Record Type
159".

What might that be?

Personally I always assume a patch invalidates existing journals and
checkpoints but this group is more bold than I am.

In fairness, the log also claims the rollforward completed successfully.
--
Roy

UK Ingres User Association Conference 2009 will be on Tuesday June 9, 2009
Go to http://www.iua.org.uk/join to get on the mailing list.

On May 6, 2009, at 1:33 PM, Roy Hann wrote:

According to the current dm0l.h, it's "BTPUTOLD" and commented
to be "INVALID due to b109936".

Comment history says "child on DMPP_INDEX may be > 512, so it must be
logged separately in DM0L_BTPUT, DM0L_BTDEL records". The change
is old enough to plausibly be part of a 2.6 patch.

ie new jnl record types were created to correct a deficiency
in the structure.

BTPUT is put into a btree index.

Karl

Karl & Betty Schendel wrote:

Obliged. As ever.

--
Roy

UK Ingres User Association Conference 2009 will be on Tuesday June 9, 2009
Go to http://www.iua.org.uk/join to get on the mailing list.