Alex Thurgood wrote:
On Wednesday 29 August 2007 15:53:22 Barbara Duprey wrote:
Hi Barbara,
When I was using the linked .dbf and this happened, I think it may be
why my data got so royally messed up. I suspect it was "recovering" by
using some data buffer it had hanging around, and with no primary key, I
believe it was pretty much random where the changes went (sometimes in a
different record but not even into the same field). Now, with the
properly defined embedded database, I haven't noticed any contamination
of existing data -- although I have had to (re)enter data I'd have sworn
was already there. But then, my memory needs external assists, too!
This used to happen a lot in the 2.0 series, and often the best bet was simply
to cancel the recovery process if you were sure that you hadn't entered any
changes into your db.
I REALLY want 2.3. I'll follow up on this then, if it happens again. In
the meantime, I'll cancel the recovery if there was no crash.
Like Frank says, you really should upgrade to the latest 2.3, it really has
become far stabler and more reliable (on the whole ;-) )
Alex
Yes, I really, really want to go to 2.3, but the site is still offering
2.2.1 as the latest stable release and I'm not sure a development build
is what I want. So I seem to have these choices: stick with 2.0.4 until
2.3 comes out and then upgrade; upgrade to 2.2.1 and then to 2.3 in a
few(?) days; upgrade to the latest 2.3 development build and then to 2.3
when it's stable. Are you saying that the latest 2.3 development build
really is stable enough for production work? If so, I'll gladly go to
it. I'm on WinXP, us-en, so the more arcane aspects of locale and so on
don't really affect me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
