RE: DDS to SQL - date definition

Things get curiouser and curiouser. Earlier IBM had suggested there was a
problem in that the format level ID was different between DDS and DML. Now
the latest from the PMR:

"Action Taken: I had the developer take a look at this. He said there is a
value in the format used for the format level id THAT IS SET DIFFERENT IN
SQL THAN DDS (emphasis mine). In this case it is working as designed."

"I asked the developer if there were any setting in SQL that could be
changed to make the DDS and SQL format level IDs the same."


"Thanks,
Greg"

Interesting development, no? I suppose there could be a number of reasons
they are set differently, including the DDS or DML having been incorrect in
some fashion for a long time, but to correct it now would break backwards
compatibility. Who knows?

In any case, I related to them that in trying to modernize into SQL DML from
DDS, this would definitely slow me down, as well as anyone else using date
data types, due to massive numbers of recompiles. It wouldn't surprise me
if time and timestamp fields turned out that way too.

I am expecting more communication with them.