Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The CL Corner: Introducing the New Run SQL Command

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The CL Corner: Introducing the New Run SQL Command

    I hear you, and IBM is aware of the concern over using the command name RUNSQL.

    On the flip side, anyone familiar with the system (and not having built their own RUNSQL in the past) might reasonably expect any IBM provided command with this function to be named RUNSQL, accessible through GO CMDRUN, etc. To introduce a name such as EXECSQL, DOSQL, RUNSQLIBM, RUNLATESQL, etc. would not be intuitive or obvious to the vast majority of users. Clearly the best solution would involve IBM having provided this function years ago.

    Right now I'm just glad I'm not still in the System Design Control Group (which is the first time I've ever said/thought that lol).

  • #2
    We also have our own RUNSQL command, but in place of the SQL parameter ours is called STM. No problem, I'll just amend all of the calls to our RUNSQL command to QUSRSYS/RUNSQL so that we're back to normal again and in future we'll use the IBM supplied command. Except that the IBM command doesn't allow a simple SQL Select statement.

    By far the greatest use of RUNSQL is a quick command line RUNSQL followed by F4 then key in 'Select * from etc etc' and that's it. IBM's RUNSQL allows you to enter 'Select * from' but then doesn't seem to do anything. No screen output, no printed output, no anything. I've checked the IBM documentation ( http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infoce...bafyrunsql.htm ) and, sure enough, 'Select from' isn't one of the usable SQL statements.

    I'd hold back on the thank you cards for now.

    Comment


    • #3
      love the new command hate the name

      ** This thread discusses the article: The CL Corner: Introducing the New Run SQL Command **
      There are lots of shops that have built their own version of RUNSQL ocmmand over the years.
      The problem is that since IBM is late to the game they should not pick a command name that will most certainly interfere with years of development around user tools with the same name.
      I know they cannot know the name of every command that exists but surely they should have thought this name was "taken".
      Pardon me while I try and figure out what we are going to do about the name conflict before we load that DB group PTF.

      Comment

      Working...
      X