|
midrange.com
Vern...
I too thought of the CHGPF REUSEDLT(*NO) solution but opted not to do
it since it imposes even more sharing violations then INZPFM. Thanks for
checking it with SQL as I had too considered such an approach. I'm guessing
that C++ APIs will not be able to accomplish the task of extending the file
with a deleted record.
FYI... the INZPFM solution seems to be working and the sharing issues
have been minimized by increasing the records in mass rather than one at a
time. I've seen enough posts to this issue that warrants a solution. Thanks
again Vern,
Ken Slaugh (707) 795-1512 x118
Chouinard & Myhre, Inc.
CA/400 Certified Specialist
iSeries Network/MSE Administrator
http://www.cm-inc.com/
Vern Hamberg
<vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To: Midrange
Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
nology.com> cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: INZPFM
replacement ???
midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxx
ge.com
05/28/2003 07:21 AM
Please respond to
Midrange Systems
Technical Discussion
I tried this using SQL. INSERT INTO followed by an immediate DELETE FROM
using RRN. This was on a file with a PRIMARY KEY (has to be unique).
I think you're right, if you write all the records, then delete them all.
My thought was to write one, then delete it immediately, then write the
next one, delete IT right away.
I ran into a little thing, since the file reused deleted records. If you
cannot WRITE to a new RRN, then you may need to CHGPF first to
REUSEDLT(*NO), then set back, if that's what you want.
Vern
At 04:01 PM 5/27/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>Vern..
>
> The problem with writing to the deleted records to consume them is
>that unique keyed files will prevent you from doing so.
>
>Ken Slaugh (707) 795-1512 x118
>Chouinard & Myhre, Inc.
>CA/400 Certified Specialist
>iSeries Network/MSE Administrator
>http://www.cm-inc.com/
>
>
> Vern
> Hamberg
>
> <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To: Midrange
> Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> nology.com> cc:
>
> Sent by: Subject: Re:
> INZPFM replacement ???
> midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxx
>
> ge.com
>
>
>
>
>
> 05/27/2003 03:38
> PM
>
> Please respond
> to
>
> Midrange
> Systems
>
> Technical
> Discussion
>
>
>Probably not directly. The delete status bit is in a part of the record
not
>
>available to mortals. But how about writing new records, then checking the
>INFDS for RRN just added (or however you can do this), then delete by RRN.
>The delete ought to be fast, as it is only changing the value of a single
>bit in the header of the record.
>
>Regards
>
>Vern
_______________________________________________
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
