RE: SQL logical file equivalent

[Darrell A Martin <DMartin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Walden:

Why not do that? Since one of the main reasons for creating such a logical 
is to select the fields that are included, then using CHGPF simply does 
what is expected -- and desired. Of course one shouldn't expect the new 
field to show up; it isn't SUPPOSED to. If that causes a problem, then 
something has probably been done amiss in the program logic.

Darrell

Darrell A. Martin  -  630-754-2141
Manager, Computer Operations
dmartin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 04/20/2007 07:55:49 AM:

> > If I create the logical with record name different from the physical
> > record name and list the fields I want to include in the logical, and I
> > add a field to the physical using CHGPF, the new field will not show
> > up. 
>
> Absolutely true -- so don't do that. Seriously, if you add the fields
> you need (or even all the fields, but add them explicitly, with a new
> record format name) then you're free to add columns to the table w/out
> messing up existing 3GL programs.
>
> -Walden





This e-mail, including attachments, may contain information that is 
confidential and/or proprietary, and may only be used by the person to 
whom this email is addressed. If the recipient of this e-mail is not the 
intended recipient or an authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified 
that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is 
prohibited. If this e-mail has been delivered to you in error, please 
notify the sender by replying to this message and deleting this e-mail 
immediately.