IBM Data and AI Ideas Portal for Customers
This portal is to open public enhancement requests against products and services offered by the IBM Data & AI organization. To view all of your ideas submitted to IBM, create and manage groups of Ideas, or create an idea explicitly set to be either visible by all (public) or visible only to you and IBM (private), use the IBM Unified Ideas Portal (https://ideas.ibm.com).
Shape the future of IBM!
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:
Search existing ideas
Start by searching and reviewing ideas and requests to enhance a product or service. Take a look at ideas others have posted, and add a comment, vote, or subscribe to updates on them if they matter to you. If you can't find what you are looking for,
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
Specific links you will want to bookmark for future use
Welcome to the IBM Ideas Portal (https://www.ibm.com/ideas) - Use this site to find out additional information and details about the IBM Ideas process and statuses.
IBM Unified Ideas Portal (https://ideas.ibm.com) - Use this site to view all of your ideas, create new ideas for any IBM product, or search for ideas across all of IBM.
ideasibm@us.ibm.com - Use this email to suggest enhancements to the Ideas process or request help from IBM for submitting your Ideas.
IBM Employees should enter Ideas at https://ideas.ibm.com
Thank you Joshua. I have asked Db2 development to review your comment and provide feedback.
There are three fundamental ways in which concurrent execution can improve performance: to reduce latency (that is, to make a unit of work execute faster); to hide latency (that is, to allow the system to continue doing work during a long latency operation); or to increase through put .
The main way we can avoid such concurrency issues and build reliable code is to work with immutable objects. This is because their state cannot be modified by the interference of multiple threads. However, we can't always work with immutable objects.
Thank you for submitting this Db2 for z/OS enhancement request.
After giving the request a comprehensive review, we have determined that we cannot include it as a candidate in an upcoming product deliverable because the request has a high implementation cost with a low relative value. As a consequence we will not be implementing this request.
We appreciate your input to the Db2 for z/OS development team. We also hope that you will continue to submit ideas for improvements as customer feedback is a key component to shaping the future direction of Db2 for z/OS.
Sincerely,
Db2 for z/OS Team
Hello, Yes. The additional input you provided has been shared with the Db2 for z/OS developer reviewing this idea. We will let you know if any additional information is needed. Thank you.
Hello, Janet.
Did you see our last update on November 21, 2019 ?
Is it enough to allow analysis proceed or do you need/want more information ?
IDEA is NEED MORE INFORMATION.
Could you let us know, please ?
Hello, Janet.
Here is a scenario:
Transaction 1 updates records in the table A. Since transaction 1 is in a PWFI (pseudo wait-for-input) IMS region (the program will never be deallocated) and its plan is bound with the release parameter set to "deallocate", an IX (intent exclusive) lock will be constantly held on the table A. Then, the batch program 2 tries to scan table A with read stability, but since it claims many READ row locks it will try to escalate its locks to a table shared lock. This will cause program 2 to receive a timeout or deadlock message, since the shared lock will never be obtained on table A because of the release parameter on the transaction 1. The same would happen when running a HPU with LOCK YES on table A.
We would like to know if it is possible to change the behaviour of the release parameter to dynamically change to "COMMIT" on a plan whenever a non-intent lock is requested on an object that has locks held by it. That way, program 2 would claim a shared lock on table A and the release parameter on transaction 1 would dynamically change to "COMMIT", allowing it to release the locks held on table A on the next commit.
Thank you for submitting this Idea. We have reviewed it and would like to ask if you can please send in a detailed scenario, perhaps with messages, or anything providing more details. Thank you.