Re: Alternative to CPYF that doesn't apply a lock

[Jonathan Mason <jonathan.mason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Tommy

Thanks for that, that's the answer I was hoping for.

All the best

Jonathan


Tommy.Holden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> SQL doesn't place a lock on the file.  I've used insert, update and delete 
> with SQL while the files have been locked via programs lots of times with 
> no issues.
>
> Thanks,
> Tommy Holden
>
>
>
> From:
> Jonathan Mason <jonathan.mason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To:
> midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date:
> 02/27/2008 08:26 AM
> Subject:
> Alternative to CPYF that doesn't apply a lock
>
>
>
> Hi List
>
> We have a program that makes use of the CPYF command to copy data from a 
> work file in QTEMP to a corresponding file in our data library. 
> Depending on the file being used there can be upwards to 100,000 records 
> being copied which is starting to cause a problem as the CPYF applies a 
> lock to the file being copied into.
>
> The help text describes the restriction as:
>  
>      o  During the time a CPYF request is run, the file specified for
>         the To file (TOFILE) parameter may be locked (similar to an 
>         *EXCL lock with no timeout) so that no access is possible. 
>
> Because the file is locked this is causing other programs to fail 
> CPF4128 and RPG1216 errors.  I am thinking about putting in a change to 
> use an SQL insert instead of the CPYF and was wondering if anybody knows 
> whether or not using SQL would apply a lock to the receiving file.
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Jonathan
>
>