On Thursday 01 November 2007 19:43, GDS.Marshall wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Thank you, I will certainly take your advice and take the approach you
> have suggested. Wife permitting, I will work on it over the weekend.
OK, thanks.
>
> As an addition, what were you thinking of when you wrote
> "
>
> >>
Hello,
Thank you, I will certainly take your advice and take the approach you
have suggested. Wife permitting, I will work on it over the weekend.
As an addition, what were you thinking of when you wrote
"
>> > I
>> > assume you are trying to make as if the job is actually run in the
>> > futu
OK, I see what you are trying to do.
I'd suggest taking a slightly different approach, because you will get into a
*lot* of trouble trying to do time comparisons in SQL (each engine does it
differently).
Modify the calling sequence of find_next_volume_for_append to include a new
argument.
On Thu, 1 November, 2007 4:19 pm, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thursday 01 November 2007 16:22, GDS.Marshall wrote:
>> I am working on a patch for "status dir" and expired volumes. I am not
>> sure if this is the right place to ask this kind of question or if I am
>> just going to put peopl
Hello,
On Thursday 01 November 2007 16:22, GDS.Marshall wrote:
> I am working on a patch for "status dir" and expired volumes. I am not
> sure if this is the right place to ask this kind of question or if I am
> just going to put peoples backs up. I hope the latter is not the case.
This is the
I am working on a patch for "status dir" and expired volumes. I am not
sure if this is the right place to ask this kind of question or if I am
just going to put peoples backs up. I hope the latter is not the case.
>From debugging, I believe I need to modify find_next_vol_for_append (I can
do th
