Used to be, under DOS and RBDOS 4.5++ that one could make structural changes safely while others were using the databse. That sure spoiled me. Under windows, with any version of RBASE, I just don't dare to make any structural changes. Windows changed the whole game.
Best bet is to run with STATICDB ON so one cannot mess things up, no matter how much one is tempted. This mode requires one to rethink some coding but is well worth the safety. Users can create tables to their hearts content, they are all temporary. Dennis McGrath --- Albert Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The short answer is an emphatic YES. I never make structural changes > of this type when users are in the system. It is ok to add a new > tables most of the time, but modifying table structures is taking a > big chance. I prefer not to even add new tables with other users > connected. > > > "Atrix Wolfe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >is there any risk of corrupting a database/table doing something > like: > > > >alter mytable add amount currency > > > >while users are using the system? > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Troy Sosamon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "RBASE-L Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 11:31 AM > >Subject: [RBASE-L] - RE: SYS_TABLES TABLE > > > > > >> When you unload the schema for your database, it will be a very > small file > >> and you can edit it with just about anything. > >> > >> connect mydatabase > >> out mydb.sch > >> unload schema > >> out screen > >> > >> The file won't be over 500 k. > >> > >> You unload just the data to a seperate file. > >> > >> On a big database, I would write a program that would unload the > data for > >> each table to seperate file. �This keeps everything managable and > you can > >> edit the files if you need to. �On the really large tables, you > might even > >> want to put them in multiple files. �I would try to keep the files > below > >100 > >> megs each. > >> > >> Troy > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > Rommel > >> Relosa > >> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 11:53 AM > >> To: RBASE-L Mailing List > >> Subject: [RBASE-L] - RE: SYS_TABLES TABLE > >> > >> > >> No, it wouldn't since the data file will be 700 MB instead of 780 > MB, and > >at > >> the time, I don't have a text editor that can load such a beast. > >> > >> > >> And, I do have RScope, Troy. �:) > >> > >> I've used it to rebuild the database structure pointer-by-pointer > to > >correct > >> a corruption problem on the SYS_COLUMNS table. �Never again would > I modify > >> an unused table when 30 users are hitting the database at the same > time. > >> Hard lesson to learn, but, with RScope my colleagues and I were > able to > >> recover the structure of the database and had very minimal (if > any) data > >> loss. > >> > >> > >> 'Tis why I recommended it to Dan a few posts back. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > Troy > >> Sosamon > >> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 10:41 AM > >> To: RBASE-L Mailing List > >> Subject: [RBASE-L] - RE: SYS_TABLES TABLE > >> > >> > >> Yes it would, because you could edit the structure file and not > have to > >edit > >> the data file. > >> > >> You would just need to delete out the occurance on the weird > table. > >> Now when you re-build the database, you run the structure file > first and > >it > >> will build the db w/o the weird table. �Now when you run the data > file to > >> load all of the data back in the tables everything will run fine > and when > >it > >> trys to load the weird table, it won't be in the database so it > will spit > >> out some errors, but should load everything else fine. �You don't > care > >about > >> those errors because you didn't want that table any way. > >> > >> Personally I would not use the method on a large database. �I > would be too > >> afraid of loosing rows. > >> I would use R:scope and fix the database with that. �If your #2 > file is > >1.7 > >> gigs it will take forever to do this anyway, and I am certain you > could > >> justify the $130 for R:scope. > >> > >> Troy > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > Rommel > >> Relosa > >> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 11:32 AM > >> To: RBASE-L Mailing List > >> Subject: [RBASE-L] - RE: SYS_TABLES TABLE > >> > >> > >> With a #2 file running at 1.7 GB, I don't it would matter if I > unloaded > >the > >> structure separately. > >> > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > Troy > >> Sosamon > >> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 10:25 AM > >> To: RBASE-L Mailing List > >> Subject: [RBASE-L] - RE: SYS_TABLES TABLE > >> > >> > >> That is why I always do it in 2 parts, an schema file and then the > data > >> file. > >> > >> Troy > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > Rommel > >> Relosa > >> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 11:15 AM > >> To: RBASE-L Mailing List > >> Subject: [RBASE-L] - RE: SYS_TABLES TABLE > >> > >> > >> UltraEdit... > >> > >> Thanks, Dennis. �Every one I tried just couldn't load the 780 MB > file. > >> > >> > >> Rommel > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > Dennis > >> McGrath > >> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 6:23 AM > >> To: RBASE-L Mailing List > >> Subject: [RBASE-L] - RE: SYS_TABLES TABLE > >> > >> > >> For Editing really huge unload files, try UltraEdit. �Awesome! > �I've > >> done files larger than a gig. �It just won't choke. > >> > >> Dennis McGrath > >> > >> --- Rommel Relosa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > Dan, > >> > > >> > If you don't have RScope (yet <g>), you can try this to remove > the > >> > funky > >> > table. > === message truncated ===
