Topic
  • 3 replies
  • Latest Post - ‏2014-08-15T15:28:58Z by subra_murali@ibm
Ulli_Zu
Ulli_Zu
66 Posts

Pinned topic Database release level

‏2014-08-14T12:30:58Z |

Hi there,

Perhaps someone knows why; after upgrading a DB2 database from version 9.7 to 10.1 (without further problems), the "Database release level" of the remote catalogings isn't updated (only recataloging will do that, but I don't want to do that). See the following "list db cfg" output (I masked some values):

# db2 list database directory

 System Database Directory

Number of entries in the directory = 4

Database 1 entry:

Database alias                       = -----
Database name                        = -----
Local database directory             = -----
Database release level               = f.00
Comment                              =
Directory entry type                 = Indirect
Catalog database partition number    = 0
Alternate server hostname            =
Alternate server port number         =

<cut>

Database 3 entry:

Database alias                       = -----
Database name                        = -----
Node name                            = -----
Database release level               = d.00
Comment                              =
Directory entry type                 = Remote
Catalog database partition number    = -1
Alternate server hostname            =
Alternate server port number         =

 

  • subra_murali@ibm
    subra_murali@ibm
    14 Posts

    Re: Database release level

    ‏2014-08-14T17:01:49Z  

    Hello Ulli

    I don't think db2 will modify the entries for the remote clients for the db2 release level during upgrade.  db2 does not store the details of the remote clients that have catalogged a database within the instance.  

    Can you uncatalog / recatalog the remote db and check if that updates the release level field?

    Murali

    IBM DB2 LUW Technical Support.

  • Ulli_Zu
    Ulli_Zu
    66 Posts

    Re: Database release level

    ‏2014-08-15T07:49:47Z  

    Hi Murali,

    It's a remote catalog-entry for the local database itself (the one that is upgraded). That dates from the 32-bits-instance time, when there only was a limited number of shared memory segments for local connects, and the alternative was connecting via the - not limited - remote (tcpip-stack) cataloging.

    Recataloging the remote entry does indeed update the Database release level. Can I presume the remote caralog entries are static (and the local ones are not)? And I also take it that the Database release level is only informational in the catalog-entries?

  • subra_murali@ibm
    subra_murali@ibm
    14 Posts

    Re: Database release level

    ‏2014-08-15T15:28:58Z  
    • Ulli_Zu
    • ‏2014-08-15T07:49:47Z

    Hi Murali,

    It's a remote catalog-entry for the local database itself (the one that is upgraded). That dates from the 32-bits-instance time, when there only was a limited number of shared memory segments for local connects, and the alternative was connecting via the - not limited - remote (tcpip-stack) cataloging.

    Recataloging the remote entry does indeed update the Database release level. Can I presume the remote caralog entries are static (and the local ones are not)? And I also take it that the Database release level is only informational in the catalog-entries?

    Hello Ulli

    Thanks for the update.  I better understand your catalogging the db as a remote tcp/ip database locally :).  That 32 bit shared memory segment was a well known limitation in AIX platform!

    You are correct. Both the system database entry and local database entry will get migrated during database migration.  Release level is for information only.

    Murali

    DBM DB2 LUW Technical Support.