Wouldn't a simple 'PIPE command RELEASE X | hole | append CP DET 120 | hole' be more straightforward? Yes, it has 2 holes vs 1 spec, but I would guess that they would be faster; however, overhead would be higher . Order would be guaranteed because the "append" would not be run until there was an eof on the first "hole". Besides, I get errors when I try to run that not "command RELEASE X"
FPLCOM112E Excessive options "RELEASE X" FPLMSG003I ... Issued from stage 1 of pipeline 1 FPLMSG001I ... Running "not command RELEASE X" You need to make it "... literal RELEASE X|not command|..." Regards, Richard Schuh -----Original Message----- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Harding, Mike Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 1:54 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: a really little pipe question Coding it as two pipelines doesn't guarantee the proper sequence though, and you may _really want_ the release to occur before the detach if everything's happening inside some exec. "PIPE not command RELEASE X|spec /DET 120/|CP" Mike Harding EDS VM National Capability 134 El Portal Place Clayton, Ca. USA 94517-1742 * phone: +01-925-672-4403 * Fax: +01-925-672-4403 * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (personal) Note: For 2005, I am off on Fridays with even Julian dates and Mondays with odd ones. -----Original Message----- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kris Buelens Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 12:45 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: a really little pipe question Most of the time there is not even a need for a HOLE stage. HOLE is doing work: it is eating records, only the writing is skipped. When HOLE is ommitted the stage to its right doesn't even try to write records. Next point: never use the CMS stage, use COMMAND instead if you want to be sure of what happens. So, instead of: PIPE CMS REL X | HOLE | CP DETACH 120 | HOLE a tiny bit less expensive and safer: PIPE (end ?) COMMAND RELEASE X ? CP DETACH 120
