|
While Jeff and others will relay there are\were no ill-effects from
changing QCCSID, beware, that should not be inferred to be true for all.
Those who have made the change may not even [still] know of some
negative effects, or may have corrected any errors either without having
been informed of the need to correct or without proper attribution to
the origin [the QCCSID change] for the need to correct. Understand the
system value change for probable side effects, and try to resolve the
issues before implementing the change. If all user profiles currently
use CCSID(*SYSVAL), changing the system value from 65535 will have the
maximum impact, if any; users with a _default_ coded character set
identifier that differs from a new\changed value due to their LANGID
[language identifier] setting, those users likely will have the highest
potential for seeing negative effects in that scenario.
IIRC, the CCSID was introduced in v2r1m1 for the database; source and
data physical files. Every database file created before then should
have been assigned an /assumed/ CCSID according to the installed
language, with the opportunity to CHGPF CCSID() to override that
assignment\assumption. Note: The CHGPF CCSID() invocation has negative
side-effects for any other utilization, than to correct the implicitly
assigned CCSID from the transition from pre-v2r1m1.
If every user profile is established with an appropriate individual
CCSID [for their language and keyboard], then the SysVal QCCSID is of
lesser impact and relevance. In fact, leaving all system user profiles
CCSID(*SYSVAL), leaving QCCSID *HEX, and changing individual user
profiles to have a non-hex CCSID would have less impact than changing
QCCSID and leaving all user profiles with a default of redirecting to
the *SYSVAL.
Regards, Chuck
On 12/6/10 7:31 AM, Jeff Crosby wrote:
I changed it in the middle of the day some years back with no illhttp://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/iseries/v5r3/topic/rzahg/rzaq9.pdf
effects. Jerry Adams has stated the same thing.
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Vern Hamberg wrote:
I think this has been known and discussed since the system value
was put on the system - IOW, maybe even the System/38.
Although it has seemed to be common knowledge, I understand your
need. I don't know without searching ibm.com for QCCSID and 66535,
which is what I'd have to do.
There was something at V5R3, that the native JDBC driver would not
work if your job QCCSID was 66535. Check out the Memo to Users at
--
And search for 66535
On 12/6/2010 7:52 AM, Michael Ryan wrote:
Working with a system manager. I want the QCCSID value changed to
37 and I feel he could use some reassurance. I'm comfortable with
the change, but being able to point to the Notice to Users would
be a help. Thanks!
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.