misleading diagnostic

Here is the config fragment for this local object 
(rv = rs-view = route-server-view):

OBJ rv  ATSQ    rv de ai ao it io tc ac gd rm mb ch so
OBJ rv  MAND    rv mb ch so
OBJ rv  OPT     de ai ao it io tc ac gd rm
OBJ rv  MULT    de ai ao it io rm mb ch
OBJ rv  SORT    12
OBJ rv  UNIQ    rt
OBJ rv  KEYS    rt
OBJ rv  REC

We didn't make any changes to any parsing/checking of the current (ripe81) routines
(since we plan to move to ripe181 with our syntax checker soon),
so we just got the 'default' parsing, I guess.  

In general in ripe181, do you think there would be a problem with allowing blanks
in a key attribute?  if so, we can use some other character.

thanks.
 - r

--------

> From:    Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net>
> To:      cengiz at isi.edu (Cengiz Alaettinoglu)
> CC:      Rick Riolo <rlr at merit.edu>, rr-impl at ripe.net

> 
>   > cengiz at ISI.EDU (Cengiz Alaettinoglu) writes:
>   > 
>   > Below is an update request and reply from the database.
>   > It contains three objects:
>   > 	*rv: rs900.ra.net 3
>   > 	*rv: rs900.ra.net 30
>   > 	*rv: rs900.ra.net 300
>   > Reply is Update Ok for all three objects.
>   > 
>   > I checked the database it only contains the last one (the first two
>   > are marked with XX). I guess blanks in the key field caused this.
> 
> 
> I do not know what the "rv" object is. 
> Can you send the config fragment for this?
> 
> My guess is that your the rv attribute is parsed only to the first blank.
> Assuning that UNIQ is set to rv this means the updates concerned the same
> object. In this case the DB software did the right thing in acknowledgin all
> updates as successful.
> 
>   > What is more interesting entry with "*rv: rs2.ra.net 3" is also
>   > deleted as a result of this query.
> 
> Query or update?
> 
> 
> Daniel



-------- Logged at  Fri Oct 21 13:33:45 MET 1994  ---------