RE: CPF5027, RNQ0202, RNQ1218

1) Most programmers will probably not remember to do that.

2) For a batch program that will only run at the time that usually does
not encounter record lock error, why waste brain and figure power when
the system can do that for you.  :)

 

-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of rob@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 1:33 PM
To: RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries
Subject: Re: CPF5027, RNQ0202, RNQ1218

Why not use an error extender on the I/O statement and handle the lock
there?

Rob Berendt
--
Group Dekko Services, LLC
Dept 01.073
PO Box 2000
Dock 108
6928N 400E
Kendallville, IN 46755
http://www.dekko.com





"Lim Hock-Chai" <Lim.Hock-Chai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent by: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
12/21/2006 02:23 PM
Please respond to
RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries <rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


To
<rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc

Subject
CPF5027, RNQ0202, RNQ1218






When a program received a record lock error CPF5027, 
- If the CHAIN, READE, READ... is in the main-procedure, the job
recevies RNQ1218 (Unable to allocate a record) error.  RNQ1218 is an
inquiry message that allows user/operator to retry the record lock.
 
- If the CHAIN, READE, READ... is in a sub-procedure, the job receives
RNQ0202 (RPG procedure ended in error).  RNQ0202 is an inquiry message
that does not have a retry on record lock.
 
Question:  Is there a system setting/compile option that can be done to
make scenario two to always receive RNQ1218, instead of RNQ0202?
 
thanks.