On 2016/04/16 3:03 AM, R Smith wrote: > Actually, this would achieve the same, without the extra table:
No it won't work this way at all, I misjudged the outcome. That's what I get for not testing it - Apologies!
On 2016/04/16 3:03 AM, R Smith wrote: > Actually, this would achieve the same, without the extra table:
No it won't work this way at all, I misjudged the outcome. That's what I get for not testing it - Apologies!