David Merrill writes:
> I read this again and changed my mind, and I'll tell you why...
>
> When a record is changed, it is moved to the audit table, and a new
> record is generated. That means a new GUID as well. So if the record
> exists in the transaction table, it is necessarily the same "ori
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:54:44 CST, the world broke into rejoicing as
Patrick Spinler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> David Merrill wrote:
> > You can't avoid having a limit on text fields, but you can make them
> > very large.
>
> The only way to get "unlimited" text fields (or a reasonable
> approxim
On Mon, 01 Jan 2001 18:07:01 EST, the world broke into rejoicing as
David Merrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 01:04:01AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > It's been rumoured that David Merrill said:
> > >
> > > Option 1, no concurrent edits allowed:
> > >
> > > cl
I read this again and changed my mind, and I'll tell you why...
When a record is changed, it is moved to the audit table, and a new
record is generated. That means a new GUID as well. So if the record
exists in the transaction table, it is necessarily the same "original"
data.
On Sat, Dec 30, 20
On Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 01:04:01AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> It's been rumoured that David Merrill said:
> >
> > Option 1, no concurrent edits allowed:
> >
> > client 1 -> server "I want to edit record 1"
> > server -> client 1 "OK"
> >
> > client 2 -> server "I want to edit record 1
