> 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.
>

you can, of course, design your system to never change a PK value
Alan