>The Wish #1146 (yes, it is one that I wrote) this morning was rated as "Disagree - I see no need for this" by someone.
>
>That wish relates to the fact (at least as documented in MSKB #Q281281) that FLUSH does not perform in accordance with its VFP Command Reference documentation - it does not (any longer) ensure that data is written to disk. Instead, because of the changes to more recent Microsoft operating systems, it only ensures that the OS "knows" that VFP wants the specific data written to disk immediately. VFP continues to process after receiving a "got it" (note: not a "done it") from the operating system.
>
>The wish in question requested some capability, and suggested an additional clause for the FLUSH command, to permit the developer to specify that s/he could ENSURE that the writing in question has been confirmed to be successful.
>
>I could (possibly) understand someone rating it as "Helpful - not a big issue for me" but I am curious at the kind of rationale that would have someone rate it as an outright "Disagree - I see no need for this".
>
>Maybe the explanation is along the lines of "I'd rather have the VFP Team work on some more important things than this wish". If that is the case I would only say that I see the rating of "Helpful - not a big issue for me" as serving exactly that purpose.
>
>Any opinions?

I don't think that the wish is feasible. I'm not the one who rated it, BTW. For performance reasons, any file server is probably going to cache its data. Further, as mentioned in "Inside SQL Server 7.0", some controllers will lie, and not actually commit the data, but simply say so. That's why they tell you to: Make sure that the controller doesn't "lie"; and turn-off write-behind caching.

Under the circumstances, I don't think that the wish is feasible, since, when write behind caching is enabled, there's no way for VFP to force the write.