Geoff Worboys wrote:

>> That said, it would seem that a potential problem has been
>> identified IN FIREBIRD ? Which is where I thought the problem
>> was in the first place. And as in the past while Jason has
>> successfully hidden problems in Firebird, it is the core code
>> which needs fixing. So this needs to be escalated to the
>> Firebird list as few Firebird developers read this list.
>
> I don't know that I would describe what Ed has so far shown as
> problem in Firebird.
>
> Does every app need every generator call to commit (flush to
> disk)? I would say that most applications do not. They only
> need the generators committed when a transation commits - and
> this is what Firebird does (since v1.5.1). If Ed can
> demonstrate a use-case where this does not happen then I
> completely agree, that would be a real problem that should be
> fixed in Firebird. Note however that the current demo app does
> not show this.

I must say that *I* expect the generator to be consistent, so if a number is
allocated, and another client uses the same generator then it should not depend
on 'something else' happening for the change to the generator to be remembered?
I have always assumed that having accessed the generator, then that number is
'lost' end of story ... if that is not the case, then the fault is with
Firebird? But having been stung several times in the past by windows cache
problems, clearing up ANY crash causing action would be my first concern when
the 'server' is on the same machine.

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php