RE: Dumb SQL question

An extra step for constraints? That's what custom create commands are for.
:-))

I'll stick with DDS. At least I can read it.

Paul Nelson
Office 512-392-2577
Cell 708-670-6978
nelsonp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of rob@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 2:45 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: RE: Dumb SQL question

I think someone else explained why a cpyf might fail. But in general if
you have the "parent" in PRTMST prior to copying the "child" into this
file you should have no problem with cpyf. This would be no different
than a DDS file with ADDPFCST added to it. Don't blame it on DDS versus
DDL. Blame it on people tired of having garbage in their data files. One
of the things DDL brings to the table is you can define it with one source
and you do not need to have DDS AND a "make" that adds the ADDPFCSTs.

If someone created a PF file with DDS and put UNIQUE on it would it be
their fault that your CPYF failed because it no longer allowed duplicate
keys in the item master? Don't laugh - I know of an ERP vendor that
doesn't use UNIQUE on any PF's or LF's. All file editing is supposed to
be done with their RPG code. And, yes, occasionally we get duplicate keys
after mergers and acquisitions. Our fault, true - however, a little iron
work (file constraints) would do wonders to prevent that.


Rob Berendt