Search results

Another thought has occurred to me... is the problem code perchance running as a scheduled task?

Well, yes. But since that has not happened yet I am suspicious that the malware known as "anti-virus" may be doing something to interfere with the proper operation of the code.

"Servers" do not typically make GUI requests. That would be something that, presumably, is handled on the client where the (G)UI is running. I don't know what you mean by that. "As we know" seems to suggest that you already know. And, yet, you are asking a question about how to do it. So I'm a...

Since Windows is involved... is there some sort of anti-virus malware running?

Your report timestamp precision is only to the second. I don’t know if that is because the data captured is only precise to the second or if it is just being truncated. But if the underlying data is a datetime field you could get millisecond precision and would likely see some sort of “gaps”...

Locking someone out after failed login attempts does not prevent additional *attempts*. To do that you would need to teleport to the perpetrators location and handcuff them before than can start to try to login again. Of course there could also be a gang of people trying to sneak in from...

After you fail 5 times you are “locked out”, right? Meaning that even if someone continues guessing (another 15 times) and happens to guess correctly they still don’t get in. But the attempts are noted. Which you would want.

Good on you! Personally, I would consider making it a nightly process. It is very, very cumbersome to move large amounts of audit data.

Presumably your sample code is simplified for our benefit so maybe my comments do not apply but... 1) As has been pointed out work-tables do not participate in record locking. 2) When you FIND FIRST ... NO-ERROR you are, basically, checking to see if any records at all exist in that...

Also... you don't want to be keeping audit data in your production database. You want to routinely move it to a reporting database. You did not say if you already do this or not. But I have seen enough audit enabled databases in the wild to be of the opinion that you are probably NOT already...

Progress Tech Support is great but, unless you actually have a problem, it is perfectly feasible to upgrade without ever talking to them. Most people have no problem at all and no need to work with support to get upgraded.

If I were in your shoes I would reach out to Consultingwerk. They are a German company but they do have very good North American resources. And they are good at this sort of thing. https://www.consultingwerk.com/ Peter Judge occasionally post here and may see this.

Yes, the Boston PUG is late September & Early October, Europe is in early November. As James says, time flies, it will be on us before you know it. FWIW, that all _sounds_ wonderful but so has every fad of the last 75 years of computing. Some concrete and digestable examples sure would be nice.

Concrete examples are always good to argue about.

The easiest way to hunt down the right people and get a conversation going is to attend a PUG.

Forgive me if I am just an old fossil but I am having difficulty understanding the attraction of migrating a schema to neo4j. This approach seems like it might be helpful for OLAP applications or for adding on such functionality but I don't see that there is anything there that would be very...

FWIW... I think the difference here is that you are actively investigating something that you already know is a problem. I am a bit more focused on diagnosing a situation that I didn't know about ahead of time. Minor detail: you only get the top of the stack with type "1". You need type "2"...

Regarding the client statement cache and "3" vs "1"... The problem that I have with using "3" to try to get to the bottom of a problem is that a lot of problematic code starts off with something like reading a control record. And then it dives into the more complex and problematic stuff. Worse...

ProTop has such a watchdog. We do not, however, do anything specific about multiple database situations. You are probably an exception but in our experience that kind of thing will occur in the "main" database first and foremost and it when we disconnect that session the others will follow. If...

Probably because "the" FOR EACH is awfully optimistic. Sure, you could do stuff with dynamic queries but that's going to be a lot more complex and may introduce performance concerns.