Peter,

My apology if I used poor phrasing in my reply. Certainly NO insult/aggravation/harm/etc was intended.

As I see the thread #580276, the title mentions PRB: Q293638 but the specific message #583143 suggests a 'fix' for a problem that seems closely related but also seems a bit different (to me at least) from the original problem described in Q293638. I see it as Q293638 is a general problem while the description in #583143 may relate to a specific case.

I know this for myself - since reading #583143 I put 2 dummy fields at the start of every table where I use an Integer PK and I often wonder if I shouldn't be putting them there for every table.

To summarize, I wanted to be sure that you read the specific notes about the extra dummy fields to 'protect' against some, possibly related, corruption you are experiencing.

cheers and good luck yet


>>Peter,
>>
>>Actually it was the 'fix' mentioned in message#583143 regarding corrupted key data (and subsequent header corruption) that I was aiming you at.
>>
>>That piece of the thread said that adding 2 dummy fields at the front severely reduced the incidence of the problem described there.
>>
>>In any case, whatever helps...
>>
>>cheers and continued wishes for good luck on this
>
>Jim, I think I am missing something, unless your "I" from "I was aiming you at" must be read in bold ... ;))
>But you are not like that I think.
>So what do you mean please ?
>
>Anyway, about the "bold" thing : it was actually you who lead me to this other thread that involved Geoff (and Vlad). How about that ?
>But please explain what you mean by the above ...
>
>Your wine tastes great