Come on, people. A request was made for options. I guess I wasn't real clear on the use of the *0 possibility. Use 1*0 to store the number of sub key parts, or use just a record with the main key part and no subpart. The task was how to not hold up everyone else with a sequential key counter record. There are a bunch of ways to satisfy the bean counters. You just have to find one that is going to make them happy! KISS. The auditors want a way of knowing what happened. They want someone who is accountable and can say they know "this" is the way things work. Provide them with that, CYA, and document it.
Now if you have something better, offer it up! The original poster wants options, so lend a hand instead of a finger. BobW > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-u2- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Johnson > Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 4:29 PM > To: U2UG > Subject: Re: [U2] Best practice for Sequential IDs using TRANSACTION START > & COMMIT/RO... > > But this would not keep those pesky auditors happy. In the following > sequence, > how could they know that item 1*4 was missing? > > 1*1 > 1*2 > 1*3 > 2*1 > etc. > > Regards, > Steve Johnson > FXA Group Ltd > Bangkok > [snip] ------- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
