RE: SQL views missing after Cumulative PTF's applied

[Dan Kimmel <dkimmel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Did you search the archives? This sounds similar to a problem that was discussed a couple months ago on this list. Afraid I don't have time right now to search for you. After applying PTF's certain elements that should have been included in the SQL tables (SYSTABLES, etc) wasn't there. It seems the earlier one was stored procedures or UDF's. A view would be similar storage in systables.

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robert Clay
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 2:29 PM
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx; midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: SQL views missing after Cumulative PTF's applied

I've already opened a PMR (thought of that first, of course).  Just 
wanted to know if anyone else had a similar experience while waiting for 
IBM to contact me.

We don't have H/A and not very many of the objects are journaled so no 
joy there.

Thanks for the comments anyway.

"Contrariwise, if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would 
be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."--Tweedledee

On 04/30/2013 2:59 PM, rob@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Are you journalling your files either just because, or because you are
> using a H/A package like Mimix?  If so, check the audit journals for
> deletion time.
>
> I'd definitely open a ticket with IBM.  Let's say your DDS defined file
> magically disappeared, would you say "darn, I hate DDS.  Must be something
> flakey with that.  Oh well, stuff happens.  No need to bother IBM about
> this"?  Heck no, you wouldn't say that!
>
> I'd definitely open a ticket.  If not for you, then for all those Luddites
> who will use your experience to either:
> A - Avoid putting on PTFs
> B - Avoid DDL defined files.
> Not that they would use that as a reason to quickly move to 7.1...
>
>
> Rob Berendt