On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 06:08:46AM +1000, Phillip J Shelton wrote:
> Derek Atkins wrote:
>
> > David Merrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > aisb, I consider the issue of closing the books and making all
> > > transactions prior to that immutable to be completely orthogonal to how
> > > the running total is determined. I am proposing a solution to the
> > > maintenance of running balances that scales well.
>
> I agree.
>
> > Let me give an example... You have 1000 transactions a day, so you do
> > daily checkpoints.
>
> And going back to the table, if you do daily checkpoints then you get one
> record per day. Is date good enough to allow you to do a checkpoint every
> 500 transactions? In this case you would have two records per day. i.e.
> does date include the time?
No, date does not include the time. To enable the admin to tune the
system, we could give them the ability to specify either daily
checkpointing, or after-n-transactions checkpointing. Then, we would
have to specify the exact transaction which was checkpointed, though.
--
Dr. David C. Merrill http://www.lupercalia.net
Linux Documentation Project [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Collection Editor & Coordinator http://www.linuxdoc.org
Finger me for my public key
Why do we want intelligent terminals when there are so many stupid users?
_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gnumatic.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
