On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 08:32 +0200, Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany wrote: > Hello Swarup, > > > ok, but what should I do? Do I say "yes", or, "No"? > > > > What sort of "bug" is it? i.e. is the "bug" superficial, such that the > > file will still work fine if I say yes, or is something going to go > > seriously wrong? > > > > How does one manage the situation in view of the bug. > > If you say "Yes", the data in this column is lost. If you say "No", > nothing happens, including the column not being altered.
I see. So if I have no needs for that PARTICULAR "ID" column which I had, then I could say "Yes" and the program will go ahead and remove my ID column and properly create another one numbered (in my case) 1 to 40? And that new ID column will work properly as an auto-generating PK column? If that is so, then for many of my tables, that will be just fine. > If you want to preserve the data and still alter the column, you can a) > use 2.3 RC1 or b) manually execute the SQL statement for altering the > column via Tools/SQL. Yes, I see. In that case I can follow Drew's directions. --Which I will in any case, try, so that I can let him know if it worked. > (Executing the statement is perfectly possible, the bug in Base is that > it creates a wrong statement.) When you say "wrong", I'm sure what you mean. It sounds from your description like the statement is accurate. "Yes" does what it says it will do, and "No" does what it says it will do. Although of course, it would have been great if there were a third option there as well which was that one could keep one's original ID column and have Base make THAT the auto-generating PK column. So I guess "wrong" means that this option should be there as well, right? thanks, Swarup --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
