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.