Re: PTF apply, DLYALL, brms ralphed.

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.