Re: different implicit casting behaviour

rooty_hill2002_at_yahoo.com.au (Gary) wrote in message news:<171bd226.0407112252.6d16b42_at_posting.google.com>...
> All,
>
> This was from one of my programmers. She claimed one of her statements
> was working in system testing region, but after being promoted to user
> acceptance testing region it stopped working, so it became mu problem.
>
> She uses the following statement to simply retrieve one field
> "cat_type_name" from table "loan_product":
>
> SELECT cat_type_name FROM loan_product
> WHERE acct_type = 1028
> AND int_cat = 003
>
> Unfortunately, both acct_type and int_cat are defined as CHAR(4) and
> NOT NULL. So apparently, this statement should not work at all.
> However, in system testing region it DID work. I rejected to look any
> further unless she change the statement to:
> SELECT cat_type_name FROM loan_product
> WHERE acct_type = '1028'
> AND int_cat ='0003'
>
> She did and her application is working happily in user testing region
> now. However, I still can't answer the question why it worked in
> system testing region but doesn't work in user acceptance region. I
> compared the table in two regions, couldn't find any difference. Looks
> like the implicit casting behaves differently in these two databases.
>
> Any idea about what I should check to find out the reason.
>
> Sorry guys, I am a newbie.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Gary

DB versions the same? Same patchsets applied? Are the two databases on the same server and OS version?

Pete's Received on Mon Jul 12 2004 - 07:28:58 CDT