Upgrading database from 2.00 to 2.01 problem SOLVED

  • Follow


Recently, when trying to upgrade the RMS database from 2.00 to 2.01, I ran 
into a problem that I was surprised I found no posts or mention about 
anywhere I searched. Because of that, I wanted to post to the newsgroup in 
case anyone else ever has this problem:

Despite Z-ing out and backing up the database, I was unable to upgrade the 
database from 2.00 to 2.01 in Administrator.

I do not use integrated card processing (EDC), but use a standalone terminal 
for card transactions. Regardless, somehow, when first using RMS in 2005, 
presumably with the sample database, I managed to record three EDC 
transactions that were never settled. I do not have a way to settle them, 
and never needed to, so they were left in the database and forgotten about.

This was highly problematic, as I had upgraded Manager and Store Ops POS on 
both my machines, yet they could not connect with the old database version, 
and Administrator could not update the database to allow them to connect.

After uninstalling and reinstalling RMS on one of the PCs, I was able to log 
in to the database with an older version of Manager. Looking around at every 
report and option for a clue about what else might prevent Administrator 
from being able to update the database, I stumbled upon "Settle EDC Batch", 
which as mentioned above, is not something I have ever used. That command 
showed three batches, which I was unable to settle.

I discussed the problem with a friend with SQL experience, he remotely 
(cool!) deleted the three offending batches in my database, after which, 
Administrator WAS able to update the database (after I again backed it up). 
I updated my version of RMS and now all machines can access the 2.01 
database.

If any consultants are helping clients who don't use EDC/integrated 
processing, that doesn't mean that they don't HAVE unsettled batches 
preventing certain Administrator actions like database udates. 


0
Reply OlyBikes 1/25/2010 8:34:04 PM


0 Replies
409 Views

(page loaded in 0.117 seconds)

Similiar Articles:
















7/24/2012 8:12:39 PM


Reply: