Author: Michael Madigan
Posted: 2012-03-15 00:06:14 Link
I have a system with two versions of the same software running, which are almost identical.
I have a Foxpro 2.6 program and a VFP 9.0 program.
The VFP reports a corrupt tag, the 2.6 doesn't. Has anyone seen this before?
It's no big deal since I just recreate the index, but it is curious. Is there better error checking in VFP 9.0?
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
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/1331787974.12055.YahooMailNeo@web125602.mail.ne1.yahoo.com
** 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.
Author: Sytze de Boer
Posted: 2012-03-15 00:23:28 Link
Oooooooooh yes
My table "fixer" system is based on VFP6 because it can open tables which
VFP9 can't.
S
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Michael Madigan <mmadi10699@yahoo.com>wrote:
> I have a system with two versions of the same software running, which are
> almost identical.
>
> I have a Foxpro 2.6 program and a VFP 9.0 program.
>
> The VFP reports a corrupt tag, the 2.6 doesn't. Has anyone seen this
> before?
>
> It's no big deal since I just recreate the index, but it is curious. Is
> there better error checking in VFP 9.0?
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
> text/plain (text body -- kept)
> text/html
> ---
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
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/CAG1nNy-6GERH1GF-ck+DtEv_h9EhU7Ws7OLxzNqLJ9inCwD1sQ@mail.gmail.com
** 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.
Author: Michael Madigan
Posted: 2012-03-15 00:24:34 Link
Do you know why?
________________________________
From: Sytze de Boer <sytze.kiss@gmail.com>
To: profox@leafe.com
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 1:23 AM
Subject: Re: 2 versions sharing same databases, one says it's corrupt, the other fine
Oooooooooh yes
My table "fixer" system is based on VFP6 because it can open tables which
VFP9 can't.
S
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Michael Madigan <mmadi10699@yahoo.com>wrote:
> I have a system with two versions of the same software running, which are
> almost identical.
>
> I have a Foxpro 2.6 program and a VFP 9.0 program.
>
> The VFP reports a corrupt tag, the 2.6 doesn't. Has anyone seen this
> before?
>
> It's no big deal since I just recreate the index, but it is curious. Is
> there better error checking in VFP 9.0?
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
> text/plain (text body -- ke[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
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/1331789074.20758.YahooMailNeo@web125601.mail.ne1.yahoo.com
** 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.
Author: Sytze de Boer
Posted: 2012-03-15 00:25:33 Link
No, sorry
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Michael Madigan <mmadi10699@yahoo.com>wrote:
> Do you know why?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sytze de Boer <sytze.kiss@gmail.com>
> To: profox@leafe.com
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 1:23 AM
> Subject: Re: 2 versions sharing same databases, one says it's corrupt, the
> other fine
>
> Oooooooooh yes
>
> My table "fixer" system is based on VFP6 because it can open tables which
> VFP9 can't.
>
> S
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Michael Madigan <mmadi10699@yahoo.com
> >wrote:
>
> > I have a system with two versions of the same software running, which are
> > almost identical.
> >
> > I have a Foxpro 2.6 program and a VFP 9.0 program.
> >
> > The VFP reports a corrupt tag, the 2.6 doesn't. Has anyone seen this
> > before?
> >
> > It's no big deal since I just recreate the index, but it is curious. Is
> > there better error checking in VFP 9.0?
> >
> > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> > multipart/alternative
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
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/CAG1nNy_pMYEPGm9CUChBfr=wiLj0ospEAhUPD0brP7Vf36vsMg@mail.gmail.com
** 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.
Author: Alan Bourke
Posted: 2012-03-15 03:46:12 Link
SET TABLEVALIDATE ?
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012, at 10:24 PM, Michael Madigan wrote:
> Do you know why?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sytze de Boer <sytze.kiss@gmail.com>
> To: profox@leafe.com
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 1:23 AM
> Subject: Re: 2 versions sharing same databases, one says it's corrupt,
> the other fine
>
> Oooooooooh yes
>
> My table "fixer" system is based on VFP6 because it can open tables which
> VFP9 can't.
>
> S
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Michael Madigan
> <mmadi10699@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> > I have a system with two versions of the same software running, which are
> > almost identical.
> >
> > I have a Foxpro 2.6 program and a VFP 9.0 program.
> >
> > The VFP reports a corrupt tag, the 2.6 doesn't. Has anyone seen this
> > before?
> >
> > It's no big deal since I just recreate the index, but it is curious. Is
> > there better error checking in VFP 9.0?
> >
> > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> > multipart/alternative
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
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/1331801172.15674.140661049473497@webmail.messagingengine.com
** 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.
Author: Michael Madigan
Posted: 2012-03-15 03:47:21 Link
Not even familiar with that, I'll look it up.
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Bourke <alanpbourke@fastmail.fm>
To: profox@leafe.com
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 4:46 AM
Subject: Re: 2 versions sharing same databases, one says it's corrupt, the other fine
SET TABLEVALIDATE ?
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012, at 10:24 PM, Michael Madigan wrote:
> Do you know why?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sytze de Boer <sytze.kiss@gmail.com>
> To: profox@leafe.com
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 1:23 AM
> Subject: Re: 2 versions sharing same databases, one says it's corrupt,
> the other fine
>
> Oooooooooh yes
>
> My table "fixer" system is based on VFP6 because it can open tables which
> VFP9 can't.
>
> S
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Michael Madigan
> <mmadi10699@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> > I have a system with two versions of the same software running, which are
> > almost identical.
> >
> > I have a Foxpro 2.6 program and a VFP 9.0 program.
> >
> > The VFP reports a corrupt tag, the 2.6 doesn't. Has anyone seen this
> > before?
> >
> > It's no big deal since I just recreate the index, but it is curious. Is
> > there better error checking in VFP 9.0?
> >
> > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> > multipart/alternative
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
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/1331801172.15674.140661049473497@webmail.messagingengine.com
** 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.
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
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/1331801241.85780.YahooMailNeo@web125605.mail.ne1.yahoo.com
** 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.
Author: Dave Crozier
Posted: 2012-03-15 04:25:34 Link
Michael,
By default VFP9 validates the table header of every table when it is opened. This is a real pain if you don't spot it in multi-user situations as it locks the table to others whilst in process. Use the "set tablevalidate off" command to disable it.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: profox-bounces@leafe.com [mailto:profox-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Michael Madigan
Sent: 15 March 2012 05:06
To: Pro Fox Email List
Subject: 2 versions sharing same databases, one says it's corrupt, the other fine
I have a system with two versions of the same software running, which are almost identical.
I have a Foxpro 2.6 program and a VFP 9.0 program.
The VFP reports a corrupt tag, the 2.6 doesn't. Has anyone seen this before?
It's no big deal since I just recreate the index, but it is curious. Is there better error checking in VFP 9.0?
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
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/BD031ECABF2B60499200AAB3DBB4A999921F83D0@EX-A-FPL.FPL.LOCAL
** 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.
Author: Sytze de Boer
Posted: 2012-03-15 14:59:08 Link
Dave
Would you consider it quite safe (preferred even) to validatetable=0
Are there any pitfalls to do so ?
S
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Dave Crozier <DaveC@flexipol.co.uk> wrote:
> Michael,
> By default VFP9 validates the table header of every table when it is
> opened. This is a real pain if you don't spot it in multi-user situations
> as it locks the table to others whilst in process. Use the "set
> tablevalidate off" command to disable it.
>
> Dave
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: profox-bounces@leafe.com [mailto:profox-bounces@leafe.com] On
> Behalf Of Michael Madigan
> Sent: 15 March 2012 05:06
> To: Pro Fox Email List
> Subject: 2 versions sharing same databases, one says it's corrupt, the
> other fine
>
> I have a system with two versions of the same software running, which are
> almost identical.
>
> I have a Foxpro 2.6 program and a VFP 9.0 program.
>
> The VFP reports a corrupt tag, the 2.6 doesn't. Has anyone seen this
> before?
>
> It's no big deal since I just recreate the index, but it is curious. Is
> there better error checking in VFP 9.0?
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative
> text/plain (text body -- kept)
> text/html
> ---
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
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/CAG1nNy-MEFYzRepuOKoVpjgDx8_HfD+w0jv1ddhoXgs4oXuVQQ@mail.gmail.com
** 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.
Author: Richard Kaye
Posted: 2012-03-15 16:20:34 Link
I've chimed in on this topic before but appear to be a lonely voice crying out in the wilderness...
If you have a corrupted table that can still be opened, you run the risk of corrupting data further if you just ignore it. Bad tags and record counts won't magically fix themselves so if you don't have some kind of automated repair process and you have tablevalidate turned off, the only way you know you have a problem is when your users report odd application behavior; the seek that fails, the phantom data record that they claim they saved, etc.
--
rk
-----Original Message-----
From: profoxtech-bounces@leafe.com [mailto:profoxtech-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Sytze de Boer
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 3:59 PM
To: profoxtech@leafe.com
Subject: Re: 2 versions sharing same databases, one says it's corrupt, the other fine
Dave
Would you consider it quite safe (preferred even) to validatetable=0 Are there any pitfalls to do so ?
S
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
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/DF1EEF11E586A64FB54A97F22A8BD0441D50E3A335@ACKBWDDQH1.artfact.local
** 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.
Author: Sytze de Boer
Posted: 2012-03-15 16:43:45 Link
Darn, I thought this might have been the solution to my persistent error 108
S
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Richard Kaye <RKaye@artfact.com> wrote:
> I've chimed in on this topic before but appear to be a lonely voice crying
> out in the wilderness...
>
> If you have a corrupted table that can still be opened, you run the risk
> of corrupting data further if you just ignore it. Bad tags and record
> counts won't magically fix themselves so if you don't have some kind of
> automated repair process and you have tablevalidate turned off, the only
> way you know you have a problem is when your users report odd application
> behavior; the seek that fails, the phantom data record that they claim they
> saved, etc.
>
> --
> rk
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: profoxtech-bounces@leafe.com [mailto:profoxtech-bounces@leafe.com]
> On Behalf Of Sytze de Boer
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 3:59 PM
> To: profoxtech@leafe.com
> Subject: Re: 2 versions sharing same databases, one says it's corrupt, the
> other fine
>
> Dave
>
> Would you consider it quite safe (preferred even) to validatetable=0 Are
> there any pitfalls to do so ?
>
> S
>
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
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/CAG1nNy-0NrrmuVSjSAisCkFB7mFnakCBYJYdUMCBYZ=1eSm8uA@mail.gmail.com
** 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.