> Wasn't it a replication system that this was targeted at?
> When the scope of unique keys extends beyond the boundaries
> of a single database, there's no way you can transplant the
> physical location of a record in one database into another.
> In relational databases, everything gets down to the logical
> correspondence of stable keys. Across boundaries, nothing
> else will do.

The db_key was only intended to replace the need to store all the 'normal'
primary key info for a table in the log file.
Once the replicator parsed the log file, it would then get the 'normal'
primary key fields for comparison/updates to other databases.

Hmm, food for thought. Food...Lunchtime!!
Vegemite toast! Mmm, mmm! My favourite!

Thanks all!

Nige.