thanks for the response Tom, I think the GP consultant made a mistake though, he should have wrote "unrecognized node"...but then again, I'm not privy to the GP-side trace-output logs, I'll check with him on that...still can't believe they think it's an ODBC error..
I saw the actual code you were referring to in utility.c, and the default for the CASE statement at the end, right along with the "unrecognized node type %d" error output message. I'm sure it's some bug/outdated bin on the GP side..I can't see how a SELECT statement against a DB would cause a skipped record, under any type of log setting in a DB
Thank you again, to both of you for the responses...really appreciate it a 'bunch, very helpful..
> From: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us
> To: mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz
> CC: deanelliotdeloach(at)hotmail(dot)com; michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com; pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #12749: WARNING: unrecognized node type: 701
> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:14:37 -0500
>
> Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz> writes:
> > On 10/02/15 16:54, dean deloach wrote:
> >> Thanks for the response guys, really appreciate it. Turns out, it has
> >> something to do with the log_statement config parameter on the DB. The
> >> DBA changed and no one knew...these are the results we get when we
> >> attempt to pull data from the GP instance via Datadirect drivers, for
> >> different log_statement config values:
> >>
> >>
> >> log_statement=all - returns n records, no errors logged in Greenplum
> >> log file
> >>
> >> log_statement=none - returns n records, no errors logged in Greenplum
> >> log file
> >>
> >> log_statement=mod - returns n-1 records, "unknown node: 701" error
> >> logged in Greenplum log file
> >>
> >> log_statement=ddl - returns n-1 records, "unknown node: 701" error
> >> logged in Greenplum log file
> >>
>
> > That is pretty scary - I'd still recommend raising it with Pivotal -
> > logging options changing the results of queries is ...*unexpected*...to
> > put it mildly!
>
> Given the described behavior, I'd bet a lot that it means somebody
> missed a case in GetCommandLogLevel(). Which makes it annoying, but
> not especially scary except for the fact that the failure is causing
> it to abort the user query too soon.
>
> FWIW, the phrase "unknown node" does not appear in the community Postgres
> sources, either now or back in 8.2; it would violate our message style
> guidelines to write it like that. So this is coming from some
> Greenplum-added code, and you definitely have to talk to them about it.
>
> regards, tom lane