RE: Restored logicals have different format level identifier to originals- what gives?

Martin,

 This is an OS bug (with a PTF - sorry, I don't know the ID.)  It occurs
when the file is created containing a TIMESTAMP field (and possibly with
any Date / Time field.)  The workaround is to run an SQL statement similar
to:
ALTER TABLE lib/file ALTER COLUMN field SET DATA TYPE TIMESTAMP

 Change the DATA TYPE to the appropriate type.  Even though the attribute
is going to be the same as it currently is, the file gets rebuilt anyway,
hopefully with the proper format level ID.

 -mark

Original Message:
-----------------
From: Martin Rowe dbg400.net@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 16:11:10 +0100
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Restored logicals have different format level identifier to
originals- what gives?


Hi folks

I've hit a problem with some logical files that have been restored to
another system. Although the field layout and attributes remain the
same, the format level ID *has* changed, and that causes CPF4131
errors :( The only difference I can see between the original file, and
the restored file, as that some of the fields show "Allows the null
value" in a DSPFFD listing of the original. The restored version
doesn't show this.

The physicals were created by SQL (they are part of a 3rd party
application) and the logicals are ones we've created (using DDS) to
provide the access to the files from our in-house systems. To try to
narrow down the problem I created a new library and used CRTDUPOBJ to
put empty copies of a couple of the physicals into it. I then used
CRTDUPOBJ to duplicate all dependant logicals to the same library,
creating them in the same order the logicals were originally compiled
in. The logicals in the new library all had matching format level
identifiers to the live system files. So far so good. Saving &
restoring this library to another system results in the logicals
without the "Allows the null value" and the mismatched level ID. :(

Can anyone explain how this situation might arise, and better still,
how I can get round it?

Regards, Martin