Well in my applications, we routinly check the availabiliy of the record
priod to an update operation as a matter of course.
We come from the old days of CISAM...<GRIN>
--Hal.
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Jean-Luc Lachance wrote:
> But,
>
> When a record is updated with PgAccess, the least that it should do is
> check the return status of the update to find that the record no longer
> exists and warn the user!!!
>
> JLL
>
> terry wrote:
> >
> > Actually, M$ Access does the same thing. When a form (or query)
> > is populated with the contents of a record, it no longer is
> > changed within the database - only within the form (or query).
> > It is only when the record is saved that there is any indication
> > of change or deletion. The only way to determine if the record
> > in the form (or query) has been changed or deleted is to check
> > that record in the database during the operation, which is not
> > routinely done.
> >
> > >> DARN!!!
> > >>
> > >> I have just wasted half a day updating record with PcAccess.
> > >>
> > >> If one is updating a record that was deleted by someone else,
> > >> PgAccess does not warn that the record no longer exists and
> > >> silently accept the update.
> > >>
> > >> Then, if the list is refreshed, the record is gone!!!
> > >>
> > >> ---------------------------(end of
> > >> broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked
> > >> our extensive FAQ?
> > >>
> > >> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
> >
> > --
> >
> > terry
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
