|
I noticed something similar in service programs that update or write to files. Since we do a lot of interactive updating, I routinely close the file after each iteration of a write/update subprocedure. Once the file closes, the change is in the file. This practice does not slow interactive jobs noticeably, but I haven't benchmarked it in batch jobs. And I get rid of the level 10 message on module compiles. Perhaps we should look into the POST opcode, as Booth suggests, though it looks like it would take more time than merely closing the file. When I wrote about this practice a few months ago, at least some members of the list thought this practice was unnecessary. Perhaps other list members will once again share with us why this isn't the best way to handle the problem. HTH, Roger Mackie -----Original Message----- From: George Kinney [mailto:GKinney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 12:49 To: 'midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx' Subject: Record commitment and SVCPGM question <snip> What bothers me is that I can't see the records that are being written until after the SVCPGM terminates. Is this normal? I am not using any commitment control that I am aware of.
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.