>>>>and I believe it is caching, but is a logic based argument, and the counter argument is that if cache is not safe then we would see a lot more data integrity problems across the system. Unless I can come with a way to prove it, it remains more like an opinion.
>>>
>>>But then maybe not - the other cases where you may expect the caching to screw up the table are old cases, which pretty much existed as early as 2.x, and were probably met, recognized, diagnosed and fixed already. Autoinc fields are a bit of a novelty, haven't exactly gained widespread use (because the majority of us already had our own ways of generating keys, or had commercial or our own frameworks which did that), so I'd expect that only a handful of people ever ran into a problem with that.
>>
>>Since caching is done at OS and disk drivers level, does it have anything to do with VFP or any specific software?
>
>I suspect any other software with such tight locations (as dbf header is) would have to have a problem now and then, when several users may be trying to write to it at the same time, from workstations with different settings, latencies and whatnot. Now since most of the computing nowadays is not table-on-file-server (it's either "I have a whole file for myself somewhere" or some sort of client-server or even simple old single-user stuff), the remaining apps which work the way we do are few and far between, not creating enough squeak to be oiled.
>
>I've noticed this trend years ago - all sorts of network problems were detected in Fox apps only, because we were the only ones who were seriously stressing the network. Nobody noticed when a .doc file loaded a few seconds slower, but everyone sees when a popup/lookup/dropdown/whatever takes three seconds longer than usual. And when the network guy comes, he'd just save another Word doc to show everything works ;).
>

For me to trust caching, it should be application independent. If it works for Word, but not for VFP they (MS, disk manufacturers, or whoever is... caching in) should say so.


>>>... You may actually know the other two, if we only knew who they were ;).
>>
>>You lost me here...
>
>My guess was that no more than three guys in the world had the problem... and if they were able to recognize it as a problem, you probably know the other two guys :).

Oh, I see. I got that message from the rest of your... message, but the way you phrased it in that last sentence still doesn't make sense to me - I may be too tired, time to go home...