Information générale
Catégorie:
Base de données, Tables, Vues, Index et syntaxe SQL
Todd,
I'd personally consider this to be an "issue" with VFP's internal choice of using a "filtered result set" and it has long been my opinion that VFP should NEVER do that!!!
I tried it out on a table, much as Garrett did in another message (though I took my cue from YuriR).
When I did a SELECT * that didn't involve Rushmore then I got records that were Deleted() in the original but they showed as UNdeleted in the result set (which I believe is the 'normal' expectation).
Doing the same with a Rushmore optimizeable WHERE did give me Deleted records that showed as DELETED because what I really got was a filtered result set. Adding the NOFILTER clause to this last one produced records (including deleted in original ones) that showed as UNdeleted.
In summary, I believe that COUNTING on getting the DELETED() flag in any Select-SQL is a bad thing to do.
cheers
>>Does the user also need to be able to recall a previously deleted record?
>
>Yes.
>
>Seems odd that, as widely promoted as updatable views are, that at bug this obvious would still be around. I cant help thinking there must be something Im missing. Think Ill check the MSDN Knowledge Base.
Précédent
Suivant
Répondre
Voir le fil de ce thread
Voir le fil de ce thread à partir de ce message seulement
Voir tous les messages de ce thread
Voir tous les messages de ce thread à partir de ce message seulement