Re: Stored procedures and DR

Chris Drauch wrote: > > Billy Wheeler wrote > } > }> .. one of the developers > }> created a stored procedure and it was running fine on both mahcines > }> primary and secondary. He later changed it and the change did not occur > }> on the secondary. Better yet, he dropped it from the primary and it > }> still ran on the secondary! > } > }Sounds nasty - could it have been cached? > > Yes, it must be cached - I have seen this behaviour too ... > > -- > Chris Drauch <cdr@xteam.co.at> ... just speaking for myself ... I agree it's cached, but we try it with a dummy stored procedure. We create one and run it. Nobody knows it exists so nobody else is using it. Any ideas? I'm talking to informix about as soon as I get an answer I'll post it. thanks,