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 updateson 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
Allow DBA to re-initialize OS process cache created by the resolver routines
This is a follow up of RFE 33797. The original RFE was closed as "Delivered", but I think the analysis was incorrect.
The complain is that whenever a OS process calls gethostbyaddr() or equivalent, the OS itself will cache some information about the current resolver configuration, like the /etc/nssitch.conf and /etc/resolv.conf setup.
The answer to my previous RFE stated that by resetting the NS_CACHE entry this would be solved, but that's not the case. Setting the cache times to 0 will clear the information kept by the engine, but will not reset the internal OS cache of the OS. In practical terms this means that if a customer changes their DNS settings they'll have to restart the Informix system in order to be able to use the new configuration. That's clearly inconvenient. What we need is a way to force ALL MSC VPs to run the res_init() OS function.
For further details, I suggest the following post that shows a workaround:
Do not place IBM confidential, company confidential, or personal information into any field.