Re: commit issue

Dear Alan Secker:

"Alan Secker" <alan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:qrqdnU7k6IxXGyzanZ2dnUVZ8rCdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I have just had a program crash at a commit
> instruction. The code looks like this:
>
> name->(reclock())

.... do you mean "rlock()" ?

> name->trade_code := space(4)
> name->(dbcommit())
> name->(dbunlock())
>
> Although I have use this order of statements all over
> this (huge) program without any problems before, is
> my ordering incorrect?

I don't think so, it seems the correct order.  Some things in the 
NG indicate that though you have locked and unlocked, changes 
won't hit the disk any sooner than you commit.

However rlock() returns a value indicating success.  Someone 
might have already locked the record (or the file), or WinDoze 
may have decided capriciously that it needed to tell you "no 
way".
http://www.itlnet.net/Programming/Program/Reference/c53g01c/ng96d06.html

Also, do all of your competing users of this file use the same 
locking schemes?  In other words, are they all running the same 
RDD, in the same version of Clipper?

David A. Smith