On 06 Mar 2013 13:40, rob@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Well, the backup worked last night. So it's suspected that applying
a PTF that affected a BRMS program, during a BRMS backup, might have
been a conflict.
No surprise there. Their cover letters have always made clear, the
requirement that no jobs with BRMS be active during PTF apply of BRMS
fixes. So by that conclusion, the remaining mystery is what caused the
PTF to get applied.
The history log shown previously... That tied the apply activity for
that PTF to the INSPTF job?
The fact that any PTFs got applied while I was only doing a *DLYALL
was not brought up.
Aside from LIC PTFs designated "mandatory perm-apply" pre-requisites,
and I suppose also "special handling PTFs" in\with a group PTF, I am not
sure that there is anything else that should cause the INSPTF feature to
actually apply a *IMMED PTF when requesting the *DLYALL install-type for
a single invocation of INSPTF.
I am not sure how the feature handles a PTF that had been loaded
previously but not applied, if one of the PTFs in the install request
supersedes that loaded PTF; the loaded PTF would need to be permanently
removed or applied for the newer PTF to get loaded, but if applied, then
would need to be permanently applied as part of the LODPTF processing
portion of INSPTF. Neither seems to have been described as what
transpired, for the given scenario.
not yet anyways.
Best I can see, nothing about SI47935 should make its application
take effect without some explicit action. That PTF is called out by a
number of other BRMS PTFs as a pre-requisite. But by definition [of
requisite processing] that PTF can be applied delayed along with all
those that have that pre-req dependency. Seems worth asking for an
explanation.... esp. given somebody else stated that they saw the same
effect with their INSPTF request.