That's what i'm doing now and I'm getting index corruption on just that database index now.
After shutting SMB2 off on all the win 7 machines, the only corruption error I've had in the last week is the database that is opened shared with a browse noupdate, all the other corruption errors have gone away. So I'm thinking of changing it to opening the database noupdate and browse noupdate. ________________________________ From: Fred Taylor <[email protected]> To: ProFox Email List <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 7:59 PM Subject: Re: Use database shared noupdate vs use database noupdate How about "BROWSE NOAPPEND NOEDIT WHEN .F." ? Your browse is in a program, right? That code will still let you tweak the records if the BROWSE was from a Command Window. Fred On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Michael Madigan <[email protected]>wrote: > No > > > ________________________________ > From: Fred Taylor <[email protected]> > To: ProFox Email List <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 7:49 PM > Subject: Re: Use database shared noupdate vs use database noupdate > > Was "USE table NOMODIFY" available in 2.5? > > Fred > > > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Michael Madigan <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > Maybe a better question would be > > > > What use statement do I have to use to just view a database with no > > possibility of blocking an rlock() or corrupting the database and is the > > shared option optional if I have exclusive set to OFF? > > > > An SQL Select is probably out-of-the-question right now. > > > > In the VFP 9.0 version I am using a grid with read-only set on, in the > 2.5 > > version I am using a browse noupdate window. > > > > I can't go exclusively to VFP 9.0 until all the bugs are worked out. > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Tracy Pearson <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: > > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 5:56 PM > > Subject: RE: Use database shared noupdate vs use database noupdate > > > > MB Software Solutions, LLC wrote on 2012-05-11: > > > On 5/11/2012 5:25 PM, Tracy Pearson wrote: > > > Michael Madigan wrote on 2012-05-11: > > >>> Use database shared noupdate > > >>> Use database noupdate > > >>> > > >>> Are these statements logically identical? > > >> > > >> Michael, > > >> > > >> Doesn't this depend on the SET EXCLUSIVE setting? > > >> > > > The clause you specify would override the SET EXCLUSIVE setting, > > > wouldn't it? > > > > > > > Mike, > > > > Testing shows that when EXCLUSIVE=ON, the table is opened exclusive, when > > the SHARED clause is not used. > > > > Tracy Pear[excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
