We invite you to shape the future of IBM, including product roadmaps, by submitting ideas that matter to you the most. Here's how it works:
Post your ideas
Post ideas and requests to enhance a product or service. Take a look at ideas others have posted and upvote them if they matter to you,
Post an idea
Upvote ideas that matter most to you
Get feedback from the IBM team to refine your idea
Help IBM prioritize your ideas and requests
The IBM team may need your help to refine the ideas so they may ask for more information or feedback. The product management team will then decide if they can begin working on your idea. If they can start during the next development cycle, they will put the idea on the priority list. Each team at IBM works on a different schedule, where some ideas can be implemented right away, others may be placed on a different schedule.
Receive notification on the decision
Some ideas can be implemented at IBM, while others may not fit within the development plans for the product. In either case, the team will let you know as soon as possible. In some cases, we may be able to find alternatives for ideas which cannot be implemented in a reasonable time.
make OSREQ (=OAM) calls work in Db2 STORED PROCEDURES which have a PACKAGE PATH
OSREQ=OAM calls are officially supported to be done in Db2 Stored Procedures. But this does not work, if the Db2 Stored Procedure is defined with a "PACKAGE PATH". I think this is, because OAM functions operate with and set different COLLECTIONS (CBRHTBSV, GROUPxx) but an existing PACKAGE PATH takes precedence over PACKAGESETS; therefore a changed PACKAGESET is ignored and leads to a -805 or similar.
Currently, the approach to sucessfully call OSREQ (OAM) in Storded procedures demands OAM Packages to be bound in application collections (or reset the PACKAGESET etc.).
If OSREQ/OAM would work in Db2 Stored Procedures with PACKAGE PATH, the Db2 Stored Procedure could be defined with a entire but segregated, correct and least scope of collection, etc. set of package-collections.
I'm not sure, whether the current status comes down to a software defect or is lack of functionality; for the latter I'd like to submit it as idea here.
Do not place IBM confidential, company confidential, or personal information into any field.