>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


Jim, as you "defined" in your first message, I am not using Integer keys. I am not sure how you came to that (though you could :), but it is true. However, I am keeping this in mind surely, but won't have it as a solution before I understand it all. And, it probably won't even solve it. Remember, as stated in this thread concerned : "data integrity is now 99 %". Would you go for that ? It would be the very last resort before indeed swithing to another environment definitly. And I won't.

And Jim, not having a dictionary at hand, compare this :

>>Your wine tastes great

with your subscription. I'd say that whine is about complaining. Is that so ? And if not, I suppose just wine is ?? If the latter is the case Jim, I surely didn't intended that !!
Either way, it looks like some nice gag.