in reply to Re: Bug in DBI? (Surely Not??)
in thread Bug in DBI? (Surely Not??)

Comes back correct Eg. with the .0012 Code I select is:-
SELECT internal_id, ctrpty_id, agreement_number, master_agreement_type, agreement_type, agreement_ccy, one_two_way, business_unit, substitution, recall_period, reset_agreement, valuation_freq, our_threshold_marker, our_threshold_ccy, our_threshold_amount, cparty_threshold_marker, cparty_threshold_ccy, cparty_threshold_amount, our_mta_ccy, our_mta_amount, cparty_mta_ccy, cparty_mta_amount, finance_net_amount, finance_nominal, finance_base_ccy, gcs_pre_haircut, gcs_post_haircut FROM history..collateral_agreement_h WHERE effective_to = '01-jan-2079' AND internal_id = 1059 AND ctrpty_id = 2383

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Bug in DBI? (Surely Not??)
by dda (Friar) on Jun 14, 2002 at 15:13 UTC
    Please post the perl code that you use to retrieve records.

    --dda

Re: Re: Re: Bug in DBI? (Surely Not??)
by stajich (Chaplain) on Jun 14, 2002 at 15:18 UTC
    Just for giggles you could try and cast it to a varchar and see what you are getting - to keep the debugging simple I would just stick with the simpliest SQL that reproduces your bug, i.e. SELECT 9999999999999.012. I'm forgetting my transact-SQL syntax but something like SELECT varchar(999999999999.021) and see what perl reports - that BETTER work. I'm guessing there is some sort of binding under the hood to a NUMERIC which is not recognizing the precision length of your query. Making a bug report with just this simple example would allow mpeppler to hopefully reproduce and identify the problen quickly. Of course your version of DBD::sybase is the most recent and you're not using an ancient sybase version, right?