Daniel;

Perhaps this is a form of marketing strategy – plant the seed that auto increment is a “major need or feature requirement” by the development community and deliver it with the next version. Then you could say “Microsoft delivers what developers want”! Be sure to not allow this “imperative feature” to be turned off. That will be accomplished in SP1. :)

Tom


>Charlie,
>
>> As for AutoIncrement, haven't you ever had issues where you copied a
>> table, but forgot to update the keys table to match?
>
>Are you telling me that you don't have your copy procedures down pat and that you don't even test the tables you've copied?
>
>Furthermore, are you telling that your custom AutoIncrement procedure doesn't handle this "problem"? Maybe it's time to refactor it...
>
>Sacarsm aside, you may have a need for a native AutoIncrement function but my friends and I certainly don't. IMO, saying it's a major feature is almost equivalent to saying that we won't get anything really useful in the next version.
>
>
>> The next key belongs in the table header, not in some other file that may
>> get out in sync.
>
>I do not share your opinionm, and neither does Oracle.
>
>Daniel