30 Apr
2015
30 Apr
'15
1:25 p.m.
On Apr 30, 2015, at 11:48 AM, A.L.M.Buxey@lboro.ac.uk wrote:
I've seen the same thing - asked a question on this list but have been too busy to follow-up with debug work etc - s the affected system is still on 2.2.4 (as 2.2.5 had other known bugs/issues) -
The changes were made as a result of bugs you reported with the older systems. As it turns out, the "virtual server" field in SQL was pretty much ignored. That's bad. The fix was to actually use the "virtual server" field. The code was tested with, and without, virtual servers. If it doesn't work, then there's some other un-tested corner case which is being hit. We'll need to know what that case is before fixing anything. Alan DeKok.