Re: Migration IDS 7.31 to 9.40

Rudy wrote: > Its RETURNS (with an S) that's allowed in v7.3, but not in v9.4. > RETURN is allowed (crucial, actually) in both versions. > > Rudy (Canadian, Toronto) > > roeferr@ig.com.br (Ferronato) wrote >>Thanks a lot for your message.[...] >> >>I'm worried about "has no return's in SPs" on IDS 9.4x because, almost >>all applications are developed in SPs. We have more than 4700 SP in >>the main database. >> >>Thanks again. R. Ferronato >> >>RudyFernandes@yahoo.com (Rudy) wrote: >>>Here's something about our experience >>>[...] >>>3. STORED PROCEDURES. Plan to recreate all SPs. v9.4 is less forgiving >>>on syntax. For example, RETURNS was allowed in v7.3, but not in v9.4. >>>Also, there are a few new keywords (like DATE, NAME, etc). The >>>simplest solution is to extract the entire database schema and >>>recreate it in a test environment well before the upgrade. The >>>recreation will identify all SPs that need to be fixed. Dear Rudy, or Ferronato, or anyone else, Can you clarify the context in which RETURNS was allowed and is no longer allowed? Was it a synonym for RETURN or for RETURNING? Can you also explain the context(s) in which 'DATE, NAME, etc' are new keywords. Actually, better than explain, can you provide minimal examples of these contexts, and any complete list of such 'new keywords'. Succinctly, I don't think that there was any intention to break code. Equally, I'm sure no-one knew that anybody was using an undocumented feature such as RETURNS - but that is an additional reason not to use undocumented features. (Or was it documented? Manual name and number and page reference, if so, please.) The other keywords are more worrying, DATE in particular. They should not, I think, have changed. If they have, I'd like to know about how they have changed. Thanks! -- Jonathan Leffler #include <disclaimer.h> Email: jleffler@earthlink.net, jleffler@us.ibm.com Guardian of DBD::Informix v2003.04 -- http://dbi.perl.org/