4GL Year 2000 question (bug?)

4GL Year 2000 question (bug?)

Post by Candy McCal » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



Our Platform is:

SCO Unix 5.0.4
Informix 4GL 7.20.UD1
SE 7.23.UC1

DBCENTURY is set to C.

When we enter a date as 022800, it translates to 02/28/2000
in the date field.
However, when we enter a date as 022900, it gives an
"Error in field" message.
When we enter 4 digits for the year as in 02 29 2000, it
gives 02/29/2000.

Has anyone else encountered this problem?  If so, do
you know in which release it is fixed?

Thanks!

Candy
--
Candy McCall
ONLINE Computing, Inc.

 
 
 

4GL Year 2000 question (bug?)

Post by Carlso » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


Haven't seen it in IDS 7.30.uc7 and 4gl 7.20.ud6.

John Carlson
Informix DBA
WHSmith USA


> Our Platform is:

> SCO Unix 5.0.4
> Informix 4GL 7.20.UD1
> SE 7.23.UC1

> DBCENTURY is set to C.

> When we enter a date as 022800, it translates to 02/28/2000
> in the date field.
> However, when we enter a date as 022900, it gives an
> "Error in field" message.
> When we enter 4 digits for the year as in 02 29 2000, it
> gives 02/29/2000.

> Has anyone else encountered this problem?  If so, do
> you know in which release it is fixed?

> Thanks!

> Candy
> --
> Candy McCall
> ONLINE Computing, Inc.



 
 
 

4GL Year 2000 question (bug?)

Post by JLK6 » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


I found the same thing (SCO 3.2.5.0.4 and Informix Dynamic Server 7.22.UC3).
Upgraded to IDS 7.30.UC2.  (Jonathan Leffler thought it was either bug B65050
or B69050).  Don't forget to upgrade any tools that you use - the SDK I was
compiling with also contained the same bug.

Hope that helps.

Joe

 
 
 

1. Question: Year 2000 bug and impact on databases, database applications, and database management

Hi,

I am currently preparing a graduate paper on the impact of the Year 2000 (Y2K) bug
on databases, database applications, and database management. Specific areas of
interest to me and the group to whom it will be presented are:

Active Databases,
Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining,
Data Warehouses,
Deductive Databases,
Fuzzy Databases/Logic/Queries,
GIS,
Image Databases,
Knowledge-bases,
Online Databases,
OO Databases, and
Text & Document Databases.

If you work with one or more of the above, and have specific examples of how the
Y2K bug is going to affect you, the database(s), or the way you do work, and how
you (or others) are specifically addressing the problem, would you please respond
either on the NG or via e-mail (address below, too)?

If you don't know about Y2K, but can at least give me an idea of how data with date
fields or date information is used in any of the particular specialties above,
whether your particular area of databasing uses primarily two-digit date fields,
and the potential impact of having the year field "roll-over" to "00", that would
be just as good.

Any and all assistance will be most helpful. Thanks,

Matt Bovee
University of Kansas
Lawrence, KS


2. Stored Procedure speed issue

3. SQL Question on Year 1900 's vs Year 2000's

4. Sum question

5. Year 2000 compliant 4gl code

6. trouble with a decode statement

7. Year 2000 and recompilation of 4GL forms

8. postgresql does seqscan instead of using an existing

9. Informix 4GL and year 2000 problems/ramblings

10. Weblogic year 2000 bug!!

11. Weblogic year 2000 bug?

12. The "year 2000 bug"

13. Forms 3 Year 2000 Bug