>Hi Jim.
>
>>This has some of the same characteristics as MSKB #Q293638.
>
>That issue is for inserting records, not updating existing records.

I understand that is the perspective of the article. But it seems reasonable, since Joel describes a problem involving TRANSACTIONs, that his problem could be related.

I understand that MS has been unsuccessful so far at obtaining a reproducible case for the general problem at hand and so now (VFP8) can only trap the condition known rather than prevent it in the first place.

Seems to me that it can only be more fruitful to consider possible related situations than to treat each as a separate case. In the end they may be different, but especially given the success at resolution to date, broadening the scope should make good sense.

I think the MSKB article itself demonstrates this to an extent. Why does the article focus on 'when there is an off by 1' record count only? - shouldn't the problem of how the 'off by 1' actually happens also be an issue to be investigated? And can an 'off by 2' or an 'off by 37' condition also happen?


>
>Doug