On 8/24/12 5:21 PM, Ken Dibble wrote: >> >That's why I concatenate with the machine name. I guess if you are really >> >paranoid >> >that a second instance of VFP could be running sys(2015) for the same >> >table in the >> >exact same timeslice as the first process you could also concatenate the >> >process id. > Machine names are not guaranteed to be unique indefinitely; they are only > guaranteed to be unique on a single domain at one point in time.
There are no guarantees in life. But the danger of sys(2015) lies in it's generation based on the timestamp. What are the chances of collision on this even not concatenating the machine name? Now, what are the chances of someone changing a machine name *and* going back in time to the right timestamp to collide with a prior record created by a machine that formerly had that name? Practicality beats purity. Paul _______________________________________________ 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.
