Barbara (and Marc),

I really wonder if RLOCK() and UNLOCK are actually designed to work with buffering of 5? And doesn't RLOCK() / UNLOCK conflict with the design objective of optimistic table buffering?

A possible explanation of what Marc is observing *could* be that operating on the last record is making VFP (erroneously) surmise that a TableUpdate has finished its processing, while operating on the first record (with at least one more buffered) suggests to VFP that a TableUpdate is just starting.

Just some thoughts,

Jim N


>Marc,
>What happens if you use the record number clause? UNLOCK RECORD 1 or UNLOCK RECORD 1054 (you should be able to find the record # you want easily).
>
>HTH
>Barbara
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>Here is my situation:
>>
>>vfp 5, support pack 3 installed.
>>set multilock on
>>buffering is set to 5
>>
>>In a private datasession, I lock 2 different records using rlock().
>>
>>I use UNLOCK to unlock (what I hoped to be) 1 record. The problem is that if I unlock the last record, all the records are unlocked, if I unlock the first record, no record is unlock.
>>
>>Can anybody shed any light on this?
>>
>>TIA
>>
>>Marc