×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
Dennis Lovelady wrote:
Chuck, it was you, I believe, who brought up the Excel limitation
(which, again, was the only point I was addressing in the first
place). You mentioned a limitation in Excel that was less than
the standardized 100-year window. If you cannot stick to your
side of the argument, please don't fault others for not doing so.
Charles Wilt mentioned Excel. Besides...
Excel if of no consequence anyhow. I was warning that there
could still be no joy [now would be generally, across all date
value] with the proposed solution, because the DB2 for i [i.e.
nothing to do with Excel] would still issue errors for any values
outside of its 100 year window. The proposed CASE would not prevent
any date overflow nor date underflow for a 36 to 40 year period that
was outside of the 100-year window, thus any data transfer that
included any of those date values would continue to fail with the
SQL0181. So FWiW I started debating that the database had
limitations imposed by the data transfer application for its use of
SQL, and continued with that same tact. :-)
Regards, Chuck
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact
[javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.