On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 13:15:42 -0500, Mike Myers wrote: >It is true that you can increase the size of a dataset that is OPEN by >another address space after removing its ENQ protection, as you have >obviously demonstrated with your experiment. > I removed no ENQ protection. I suspect that to end an ENQ in another address space would require considerable privilege that my batch job lacked. Didn't my TSO session continue to hold the SHR ENQ on the DSN?
>However, you need to understand that the internal constructs >representing that OPENed data set to the address space that had ENQueued >it previously are not dynamically updated to show the existence of the >new extent. > Understood. >Paul Gilmartin wrote: >>> >> Apparently the key word here is "system". I tried the experiment >> and readily performed secondary allocation with a batch job >> (IEBGENER SYSUT2) while my TSO session had the DSH allocated SHR. >> >> Does the system hold an exclusive ENQ to prevent this? -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
