On 14-Dec-2011 05:28 , Hockchai Lim wrote:
Oops, forgot about the MCH0601 error:
<<SNIP F6=Print details>>
The relevance and importance of using the long-established convention
for symptom strings included in APARs was "lost on" many at IBM in
Rochester, apparently still, so searching for a matching problem using
"proper" symptom strings is still a crap shoot. The symptom string for
the SNIPped MCH0601 error, with some associated text snippets remaining
to clarify the specifics, instead of the full F6=Print given:
msgMCH0601 rc03 T/QSQRUN4 tm/QSQASLOC tp/SQL_AssociateLocator stmt/12845
Message . . . . : Space offset X'FFFFFFFF' or X'0000000000000000'
is outside current limit for object MSRL3G684APALHC 041074.
Cause . . . . . : A program tried to set a space pointer, tried
to use storage outside a space, or tried to use an unallocated
page in teraspace. The space class is X'03' 03-implicit process
space for static storage in activation group mark
X'0000000000000014'. Offset X'FFFFFFFF' only applies to storage
outside teraspace. X'8000000000000000F079188635001000' is a
pointer to the teraspace page or the start of the implicit
process space for the allocation.
Although incorrectly recording "from" versus "to" [the OS program is
the *target* of the machine\LIC exception, not the *sender* of the
message!], and using xPROC and xMOD [acceptable, if only solidified and
actually utilized as the new convention], I infer the matching APAR and
PTF [two of each] to the error described by the OP are:
------- APAR: SE49625 -------
_Abstract:_ OSP-DB-OTHER-F/QSQRUN4-MSGMCH0601 A MSGMCH0601 F/QSQRUN4
FMOD/QSQSLOC FPROC/SQL_ASSOCIATELOCATOR MAY RESULT IN A QUERY
_Error Description:_ A msgMCH0601 F/QSQRUN4 FMOD/QSQSLOC
FPROC/SQL_ASSOCIATELOCATOR may result in a query
R710 SI45106 1000
Note: latest supersede recorded; "1000" signifies "not on a cumulative"
SI44884 - OSP-DB-OTHER-F/QSQRUN4-MSGMCH0601 A MSGMCH0601 F/QSQRUN4 FMO
A msgMCH0601 F/QSQRUN4 FMOD/QSQSLOC FPROC/SQL_ASSOCIATELOCATOR
may result in a query
CORRECTION FOR APAR SE49625 :
The ASSOCIATE LOCATOR statement will work correctly with this PTF.
------- APAR: SE49608 -------
Abstract: OSP-DB-OTHER-F/QSQRUN4-MSGMCH0601 A MSGMCH0601 F/QSQRUN4
FMOD/QSQSLOC FPROC/SQL_ASSOCIATELOCATOR MAY RESULT IN A QUERY
Error Description: A msgMCH0601 F/QSQRUN4 FMOD/QSQSLOC
FPROC/SQL_ASSOCIATELOCATOR may result in a query
R710 SI44883 1000
Note: latest supersede recorded; "1000" signifies "not on a cumulative"
SI44883 - OSP-DB-OTHER-F/QSQRUN4-MSGMCH0601 A MSGMCH0601 F/QSQRUN4 FMO
A msgMCH0601 F/QSQRUN4 FMOD/QSQSLOC FPROC/SQL_ASSOCIATELOCATOR
may result in a query
CORRECTION FOR APAR SE49608 :
The ASSOCIATE LOCATOR statement will work correctly with this PTF.
Note: I saw nothing in the PTF cover letters to indicate that a
relationship is established that ensures both PTFs will be retrieved if
ordering just one [i.e. neither is seen as a requisite of the other], so
be sure to order both PTFs; and perhaps order the latest supersede for
the one APAR, instead of ordering the specific preventive for the
[apparently] matching APAR.
Regards, Chuck
midrange.com
