> Also, you could escalate the case for a patch.

That would be brilliant.
This is he client who is suffering seriously from the deferred B-tree
cleaner bug (or feature) of 9.21, and who has been forced to abandon
successive 9.30/9.40 upgrades due to known bugs encountered in testing.
Would we escalate this request through the original Tech Support technician?

cheers
Neil

"Madison Pruet" <mpruet@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:JCjLb.789813$Fm2.764282@attbi_s04...
> We have a patch that we are currently testing. I'm fairly sure that tech
> support has a tool to force a checkpoint at a certain point which would
> eliminate the problem.
>
> Also, you could escalate the case for a patch.
>
> M.Pruet
>
>
> "Neil Truby" <neil.truby@ardenta.com> wrote in message
> news:btkf97$8gif1$1@ID-162943.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Madison Pruet" <mpruet@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:wdjLb.475$I06.2334@attbi_s01...
> > > There needs to be a reverted format style checkpoint at the end of the
> > > reversion or the old version of the instance will have to try to
process
> > log
> > > records from the 9.4 server. If any of the log records have changed
> their
> > > format, then that would create a problem.
> > >
> > > Fundamentally - 9.4 knows about 9.21, but 9.21 knows nothing about
9.4.
> >
> > So, in your view, no viable workaround - even having an IBM engineer
dial
> in
> > and patch the logs - until mid-2004?
> >
> > cheers
> > Neil
> >
> >
>
>