×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
Hmm, when I use FEOD, my intent is generally to force any BUFFERED data to be forced to disk. In programs where data may have been written (but still in I/O buffer, waiting the buffer to fill). What I'm not sure is whether buffered updates hold their record lock until the buffer is written to disk...
For sure, if a record was locked, but never got UPDATE, then UNLOCK would be used to release...
-Eric DeLong
-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Sam_L
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2013 4:22 PM
To: rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: FEOD vs UNLOCK
It appears that some of the folk who wrote some of our code over the
last 20 year thought that the FEOD opcode would release a record read
for update. I've always used the UNLOCK opcode.
I don't see anything in the documentation that support the idea that
FEOD gets rid of a read-for-update lock. And it appears to have failed
today deep in the bowels of an EDI batch process.
Anyone know where this idea might have come from?
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact
[javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
