On 24 May 2005 at 12:25, Nigel Weeks wrote:

>> Wasn't it a replication system that this was targeted at?
>
>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.

I see a gotcha here. What if an user has updated one of PK fields?
How are you going to find out old PK values to perform correct update
in other databases?
--
SY, Dimitry Sibiryakov.