Re: Restore to different chunk-paths?

>>> "Neil Truby" <ntruby@netcomuk.co.uk> 09/29/99 10:06PM >>> >Can I return to one of my moans about Informix? > >I can't understand why the chunks to which one restores should necessarily >have the same names. This seems an unnecessary restriction. From what I >know of the internal architecture, it should be a comparatively simple >change to the system software to allow a restore to alternatively-named >chunks of equal size and number. > >I post this opinion about once a year, and am always rewarded with a reply, >redolent of Nigel Tufnell discussing the amplifier in "This is Spinal Tap", >along the lines of "But you have to restore to the same chunk names". >No-one's every explained why. I suppose you could always hack the reserved pages, which would be easy if you could get a copy of Informix's reserve page hacker - which officially you can't. Paul Watson WF Software Ltd Tel: +44 1436 674729 Fax: +44 1436 678729 www.wfsoftware.com/informix # If you broke it, hide the evidence ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com **********************************************************************

Paul watson wrote: > > >>> "Neil Truby" <ntruby@netcomuk.co.uk> 09/29/99 10:06PM >>> > >Can I return to one of my moans about Informix? > > > >I can't understand why the chunks to which one restores should necessarily > >have the same names. This seems an unnecessary restriction. From what I > >know of the internal architecture, it should be a comparatively simple > >change to the system software to allow a restore to alternatively-named > >chunks of equal size and number. > > > >I post this opinion about once a year, and am always rewarded with a reply, > >redolent of Nigel Tufnell discussing the amplifier in "This is Spinal Tap", > >along the lines of "But you have to restore to the same chunk names". > >No-one's every explained why. > > I suppose you could always hack the reserved pages, which would be easy if you could get > a copy of Informix's reserve page hacker - which officially you can't. You'd have to hack the archive tape, not fun at all. Art S. Kagel