Re: committment control and file changes

[CRPence <CRPbottle@xxxxxxxxx>]

  The "Open" determines if the physical row data being added\updated 
will be [or will not be] registered to an activate commit definition. 
The open of an LF or a shared Open Query are both ODPs which may have 
been created\activated with the specified intent to open with CmtCtl 
active.... same as a PF might be.  No matter which ODP [activated with 
CmtCtl; PF, LF, or Query open] is used to Update or Insert records in 
the physical file, the changes are recorded\registered with the active 
commit definition as "Record level" resources [as shown by WRKCMTDFN]. 
All of the changes are rolled back, irrespective of via which ODP the 
change to the record was made; i.e. for each ODP that was scoped to the 
same active CmtDfn for which changes are being rolled back, its changes 
are rolled back.  Note: an ODP may have since been closed; i.e. the ODP 
need not remain, for its active\pending changes to await COMMIT [or in 
the questioned scenario, awaiting ROLLBACK].

Regards, Chuck

On 30 May 2012 15:14, Stone, Joel wrote:
> Yes, but...
>
> If a PF is journaled, will a record update to a LF (based on that
> PF) roll back under CM in the same manner that an update to the PF
> would?
>
> Vern Hamberg on Wednesday, May 30, 2012 5:00 PM wrote:
> > Have you looked at the help text of STRCMTCTL? It mentions some
> > requirements - among them, the file which will be processed under
> > commitment control must be journaled. There is NO journaling of LFs - or
> > of OPNQRYF or anything other than PFs, as far as files go.
> >
> > OPNQRYF is not a real file - it is a virtual access path, one could say
> > - no data contained therein, only a PATH to the data, known as an ODP or
> > open data path.
> >
> > Likewise, LFs are only an access path. <<SNIP>>