General information
Category:
Databases,Tables, Views, Indexing and SQL syntax
I was looking for it.
amazing. Indeed it makes sense.
Thanks Jim
>Edgar,
>
>for completeness, it is wish #580.
>
>cheers
>
>>Jim,
>>by any means I implied it was 'so wrong' as you put it. In the basis of the original question I did not see the logic on having the need of SQL to retrieve uncommitted changes.
>>But hey, I’m open minded. Let the options roll!
>>
>>>
>>>And what's so wrong with that as an option??? I can see someone having an application that allows inputting of "what if" data and then reviewing (potential) results. IF doing the processing using SQL is easier/cleaner that using standard DML commands, why not provide the ability to doso???
>>>
>>>There are more people wanting more things in more ways that either you or I can predict, and while many may not make sense on the surface, they likely do make sense to someone, somewhere.
>>>
>>>>Jim
>>>>are you serious, wish list for that?
>>>>I have to see that. What would be the purpose of using SQL with the uncommitted changes?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Off course that is not the reason!! For example, if I use browse instead of SELECT, it will show all the changes and even appended record.
>>>>>
>>>>>Correct. But the purposeful design of VFP's SQL is to include only "REAL" data in a query result.
>>>>>
>>>>>There is a wish list entry asking for an option to specify that UNcommitted changes be includeable too. Maybe you want to add your voice to it!?
>>>>>
>>>>>cheers
Previous
Reply
View the map of this thread
View the map of this thread starting from this message only
View all messages of this thread
View all messages of this thread starting from this message only