Yes, I put this table in its own journal. With about 200 transactions a day, disk space shouldn't be a problem. Is that recommendation against multiple journals current? All I can find is that it's allowed.
"How commitment control works"
http://www-01.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/ssw_ibm_i_71/rzakj/rzakjhowworks.htm?lang=en-us
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Wilt [mailto:charles.wilt@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 3:59 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Log all PF changes?
If you're already journalling all (most) files, it seems improbable that you can reasonably keep journal receivers around forever. I keep 90 days where I'm at now; which takes about 4% of my disk space. Where I used to be, we could only keep 7 days.
Unless you journal this one particular file to it's own journal. However, when using commitment control, IBM strongly recommends (requires?) that all files for a given commit cycle be journaled to the same journal. IIRC, rollback doesn't work right when different journals are involved.
By harvesting the data, you can just keep the one files changes you need to keep. You can also keep it in a an efficient manner.
For an audit log, off the top of my head..
SEQ#, TIMESTAMP, LIBRARY, TABLE, USER, PROGRAM, <xxx>, COLUMN_NAME, ORIGINAL VALUE, NEW_VALUE
Lastly, if you're using the raw journal format for archival...consider how you would deal with a new column being added to the table. Suddenly, you're not dealing with the same format anymore.
The problem with rolling your own, IMHO, if you _HAVE_ to keep this information, for legal reasons. Then it's on you to prove that your solution meets the requirement. Whereas with a third party, it's on them and they should already have that proven.
Charles
midrange.com
