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:
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.
Additional Information
To view our roadmaps: http://ibm.biz/Data-and-AI-Roadmaps
Reminder: This is not the place to submit defects or support needs, please use normal support channel for these cases
IBM Employees:
The correct URL for entering your ideas is: https://hybridcloudunit-internal.ideas.aha.io
This issue complicates our automation to an unnecessary degree. We have to split out tables with LOBs into separate LISTDEF with STACK NO (by joining sysibm.systables to sysibm.sysauxrels). I understand the goal is to allow for parallel REORG of the table tablespace and the LOB tablespace. However it would be good if we had some smarts (as detailed in the IDEA) or options to simplify REORG/LISTDEF/TEMPLATE automation please?
Might it be a better solution to remove the conflict altogether, allowing the LOB and the TS to exist on the same tape? For example, the table DSN_QUERYINFO_TABLE is in TS DSN8S11Q; it has two related LOBs : DSN_QUERYINFO_AUX and DSN_QUERYINFO_AUX2 which exist in TS DSN8L11Q and DSN8L11R respectively. If the IC datasets differentiate on the TS level and it also happens that the internal object identifiers are different, is it possible to avoid the conflict for the IC?
This IDEA came from Case # TS002809105 - Reorgs fails with S513 &
IEC146I 513-04