Geoff Worboys wrote:

>Hi Jonathan,
>
>This was discussed only quite recently. Have you checked the
>archives. I cant remember now if it was here, devel or
>support. But it has been covered (see responses from Ann).
>
>

Yes, I know, because I'm the one that started the topic...! :-)
Actually, I sent the message you're replying at about that time, and I
couldn't understand why it didn't get through. Now, all of a sudden, it
did come through, as well as another message I posted later on (Subject
: "Feature request..."). Strange!

>>From memory it comes down to...
> - you cannot protect against bugs or hardware failure
> - other than that the design is "corruption proof" already
>
>

Yes, this was the conclusion.

> - suggestions to the contrary may have you lose popularity ;-)
>
>

I certainly remember that part! :-)

>If corruption occurs due to bugs, the bugs need to be fixed.
>
>

Quite. And does this also include "logical" corruption, that is, when
the database gets into some inconsistant state at a high level? It seems
that there are a few known issues of this sort. Are they to be
considered as simply bugs?

>If corruption occurs due to hardware or external software
>failures - all bets are off.
>
>

Yes.

Thanks for your reply!

Jonathan Neve.