Finding pending in-place alters

Hello. I know this has probably been covered a dozen times or more here, but we're preparing to do a database engine upgrade, and one of the required tasks is to close any pending in-place alters, so that all records in all tables conform to the current data definition. I have a sysmaster query that identify which tables have been altered in-place, but it doesn't tell me which of these tables actually HAS old records out there. The only way I've found so far is to do an oncheck -pT, which I have yet again learned the hard way locks tables and wreaks all sorts of havoc on live production systems. So does anyone know a way to do this _without_ resorting to invasive onchecks? Thanks in advance, - TJG

select {+ ORDERED } pg_partnum + pg_pagenum - 1 partn from sysdbspaces a, syspaghdr where pg_partnum = 1048576 * a.dbsnum + 1 and pg_next != 0 into temp pp with no log ; select b.dbsname database, b.tabname table from systabnames b, pp where partn = partnum; ahum a quick search in the news group helps too.... See you Superboer. Thomas J. Girsch schreef: > Hello. I know this has probably been covered a dozen times or more > here, but we're preparing to do a database engine upgrade, and one of > the required tasks is to close any pending in-place alters, so that all > records in all tables conform to the current data definition. > > I have a sysmaster query that identify which tables have been altered > in-place, but it doesn't tell me which of these tables actually HAS old > records out there. The only way I've found so far is to do an oncheck > -pT, which I have yet again learned the hard way locks tables and wreaks > all sorts of havoc on live production systems. > > So does anyone know a way to do this _without_ resorting to invasive > onchecks? > > Thanks in advance, > > - TJG

Thomas J. Girsch said: > > Hello. I know this has probably been covered a dozen times or more > here, but we're preparing to do a database engine upgrade, and one of > the required tasks is to close any pending in-place alters, so that all > records in all tables conform to the current data definition. > > I have a sysmaster query that identify which tables have been altered > in-place, but it doesn't tell me which of these tables actually HAS old > records out there. The only way I've found so far is to do an oncheck > -pT, which I have yet again learned the hard way locks tables and wreaks > all sorts of havoc on live production systems. > > So does anyone know a way to do this _without_ resorting to invasive > onchecks? I've been to this movie a couple of times recently, and the upshot was that it turned out every time to be more "cost-effective" to freeze any schema changes and just run global updates in batches across all tables. -- Bye now, Obnoxio "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche did i mention i like nulls? heck, i even go so far as to say that all columns in a table except the primary key could/should be nullable. this has certain advantages, for example, if you need to insert a child record and you don't have a parent row for it, just do an insert into the parent table with the primary key value (everything else null), and voila, relational integrity is preserved. but this is, admittedly, a bit controversial among modellers. --r937, dbforums.com