Re: Improves - what you need?

I love this sort of initiative... Comments in line: On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 6:37 PM, Cesar Martins < cesar.inacio.martins@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi ! > > Few weeks ago I received some updates from IBM RFE (Request for > Enhancement) where some requests was rejected ... > > Features where I consider very important and huge missing at our beloved > Informix... (some of this request are mine :) > > So , I wrote below a list of request what I consider important for a lot > of Informix users/DBAs/clients... (me included) > > If you are interesting in something , please vote on it! (either at > rejected request) > If you have suggestion to make a request better , write your comments into > the request RFE page! > > > ============================================= > Rejected : > ID: 35921 - improve/update SNMP service - > http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfe&CR_ID=35921 > I wouldn't say this is a big requirement within our customers... It never popped up in discussions. Actually I think I only saw a customer where SNMP was used for monitoring databases.... Or better saying, they were thinking about it. So, this is my perception... Not saying this is useless, but just rarely asked for... ID: 43877 - SQL interface to obtain the temporary space usage (tables, > hash, sorts...) - > http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfe&CR_ID=43877 > > I'm a suspect on this one... It was a direct customer request. And something I needed many times. I also think the justification given was not correct, specially because current functionality does not implement was was written in the justification. But even if it did, the request still makes sense. I made my point clear, but that's not up to me to decide. > ID: 34551 - EXPLAIN on windows - > http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfe&CR_ID=34551 > Not sure about this request... Version 12 has a function to get the query plan. I didn't test it specifically on windows, but I suppose it works. And I wrote an article about how to get a query explain on any v10+ (in other words any supported version) on any client tool. Again I didn't test it specifically on Windows, but I don't imagine any reason why it wouldn't work. The article is here: http://informix-technology.blogspot.pt/2012/12/execution-plans-on-client-planos- de.html So, exactly what's the point of the RFE? At least currently it seems out-dated. Probably it was opened before ifx_explain() was introduced. ID: 45728 - Backup from RSS or HDR Secondaries using ontape, onunload, > onbar, dbexport - > http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfe&CR_ID=45728 > > This was not rejected. It's "Under Consideration". But I don't think it's well explained: "In HDR enviroments, being able to backup or export databases from and HDR, HDR read-only, or an RSS secondary server is critical. Programs like ontape, onunload, dbexport, and onbar generate locks on tables during backups and data-exports. This creates problems while applications and users using Informix try to use the system during backups in 24 x 7 x 365 production environments. Being able to backup or export data on secondary systems is critical for compliance and backup integrity." 1- Onbar/ontape don't cause any lock on tables. 2- dbexport is supported on RSS servers if STOP_APPLY is used Because ontape/onbar may need to trigger updates on the pages, it may be difficult to support them on secondary servers... So I have some issues understanding how this is "Under Consideration" ============================================= > Under Consideration or Submitted : > > ID: 61140 - SQLHOSTS groups connect to non-primary - > http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfe&CR_ID=61140 > You can use connection manager to easily achieve this (without further costs). So I wouldn't waste resources on it. Unless I missed the point of your request. > > ID: 61139 - Refresh for SSL Listeners (reload certificates) - > http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfe&CR_ID=61139 > I haven't verified if the request assumptions are correct. I'm assuming they are, and you got one vote :) > ID: 33928 - Add SQL Function to create MD5 hashes (Oracle has > GET_HASH_VALUE function) - > http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfe&CR_ID=33928 > I'm sorry to say, but requests of the type "I'd like this function" usually don't get my vote. Why? Simply because we have an extensible engine and anyone can find the source code for these sort of functions and create a C function. I understand that it's better to have them natively... But again, if an RFE like the ability to obtain the temporary space usage is rejected... On the other hand, playing devil's advocate, we just recently included a new fantastic function called "QUARTER()" :) ID: 34762 - Ability to re-create views and procedures without dependent > objects being dropped - > http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfe&CR_ID=34762 > This one fits on a much more generic issue... We introduced the CRATE ... IF EXISTS We need to implement the CREATE OR REPLACE * There are several RFEs for that sort of thing... > ID: 35529 - Alter table that has foreign keys - > http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfe&CR_ID=35529 > Voted... although I don't really understand why it happens (in all situations). As such I have problems in imagining the effort necessary which I normally use to give my votes to the highest return on the least effort > ID: 35917 - Allow TRUNCATE on table with users access - > http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfe&CR_ID=35917 > I had already voted for this one... But I think this is again a more generic issue. We should be able to change everything with activity. Eventually forcing the abort of that activity (extending FORCE_DDL_EXEC) > ID: 36229 - Implement CREATE OR REPLACE option for stored procedures - > http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfe&CR_ID=36229 > Another example... A much more generic request > ID: 36245 - SQL to identify TEMP tables from current session - > http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfe&CR_ID=36245 > I believe I've voted for this, but I'm having second thoughts... Maybe I'm not seeing the whole picture now. You say that one of the reasons is that the tem tables will stay in the session until it's closed... True, but how does this feature help you? If you know the names of the tables, you can just DROP IF EXISTS... In any case this would be made useless if the other one was implemented. Strangely this one is under consideration and the other one was rejected. > ID: 41329 - Implementation of regular expressions (adding to > LIKE/MATCHES functions) - > http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfe&CR_ID=41329 > One of mine... > ID: 42071 - Encrypt source code for procedure/function - > http://www.ibm.com/devel