Re: Testing 0.95: What TDS version for SQL Server 2012 / 2014?

On 06/24/2015 10:13 PM, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> Il 24/Giu/2015 15:16, "Sebastien FLAESCH" <[email protected]> ha scritto:
>>
>> On 06/23/2015 10:25 PM, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
>>>
>>> 2015-06-23 14:03 GMT+01:00 Sebastien FLAESCH <[email protected]>:
>>>>
>>>> I connect to SQL Server 2014 using FreeTDS 0.95.5 from a Linux Debian
> 64b...
>>>>
>>>> To me SQLDescribeCol() returns unusable type info...
>>>>
>>>> According to the TDS_Version, I different (incompatible) type info:
>>>>
>>>> TDS    Column Type       sqltype                 precision      scale
>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 7.1    VARCHAR(MAX)      -1 (SQL_LONGVARCHAR)    2147483647     0
>>>> (ok)
>>>> 7.2    VARCHAR(MAX)      12 (SQL_VARCHAR)        1073741823     0
>>>> ???
>>>> 7.3    VARCHAR(MAX)      12 (SQL_VARCHAR)        1073741823     0
>>>> ???
>>>>
>>>
>>> SQL_VARCHAR is fine. precision should be 0 for 7.2+. There is a test
>>> for this and for me returns 0! Are you sure you did everything
>>> correct?
>>
>>
>> I am using the same code in Easysoft and SQL Native Client:
>>
>>    SQLULEN precision;
>>
>> Note that I am connected to SQL Server 2014 and that tdsdump shows:
>>
>> token.c:1533:tds7_get_data_info:
>>          colname = t
>>          type = 39 (varchar)
>>          server's type = 167 (xvarchar)
>>          column_varint_size = 8
>>          column_size = 1073741823 (1073741823 on server)
>>
>> ...
>>
>
> Please try SQLDescribeCol. Libtds have slightly different point of view.
> As stated from Ms documentation varchar max is returned as varchar with
> size 0 (unlimited). Same for freetds.

??? I am confused... of course using SQLDescribeCol(), I just copied
lines from TDSDUMP...

Why can I see:

      column_size = 1073741823 (1073741823 on server)

Remember: I am using SQL Server 2014... did you try with SQL Server 2014?

S.


>>
>>>
>>>> 7.1    TIME(3)           -9 ???                  12             0
> (should be
>>>> 3)
>>>> 7.2    TIME(3)           -9 ???                  12             0
> (should be
>>>> 3)
>>>
>>>
>>> yes, server return it as a string so 12 is the string length. Scale is
>>> obviously 0.
>>>
>>>> 7.3    TIME(3)           -154 (SQL_SS_TIME2/ok)  12             0
> (should be
>>>> 3)
>>>
>>>
>>> beside scale other information are fine.
>>
>
> I'll do other test. We can fix it.
>
> Frediano
>
>>
>> I can deal with this based on the precision.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> What TDS version should I use with SQL Server 2014?
>>>>
>>>
>>> 7.3 is fine. master support 7.4 but there are no improvements (support
>>> some session recovery which are not implemented anyway)
>>>
>>>> Is there a doc reference somewhere?
>>>>
>>>> Same problems with SQL Server 2012 ...
>>>>
>>>
>>> sql 2012 and sql 2014 use same protocol (7.4) but as I said using sql
>>> 2008 protocol is perfectly fine.
>>>
>>>> Seb
>>>>
>>>
>>> Frediano
>>>
>>>> On 06/21/2015 09:04 AM, Sebastien FLAESCH wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Frediano!
>>>>>
>>>>> On 06/20/2015 12:33 PM, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Il 19/Giu/2015 10:33, "Sebastien FLAESCH" <[email protected]> ha scritto:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just installed 0.95.5 got from:
>>>>>>> ftp://ftp.freetds.org/pub/freetds/stable/
>>>>>>> (I guess this is the latest stable version?)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Attached some compilation warnings...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, no problems
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there an configure option to turn on gcc's address sanitizer?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just define CFLAGS properly calling configure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We are using this option in our product.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For production?? You known is not meant for production? It slows down
>>>>>> quite
>>>>>> a lot.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No of course it's just for internal compilation, production releases
>>>>> are compiled with optimization flags...
>>>>>
>>>>> Seb
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So far, my QA tests ran ok against SQL Server 2005, will test on
> other
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> servers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Seems that new datetime data types are now supported which is good
> news!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As stated in the news :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>> Seb
>>>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> FreeTDS mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/freetds
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FreeTDS mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/freetds
> _______________________________________________
> FreeTDS mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/freetds
>