[AccessD] Timestamp in merge database

[Anita Smith]

It sort of is  if you start off that way. I'm 20 years in on this one.

Gosh - I'm getting old.

I'm going to take the risk and add the field over the weekend and announce my retirement on Monday morning .... maybe.

Anita



-------- Original message --------
From: Gustav Brock via AccessD <accessd at databaseadvisors.com>
Date: 14/12/21 7:39 pm (GMT+10:00)
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving <accessd at databaseadvisors.com>
Cc: Gustav Brock <gustav at cactus.dk>
Subject: Re: [AccessD] Timestamp in merge database

Hi Anita

I thought it was the other way round: That a timestamp/rowversion is mandatory for replication.

But I haven't used replication with SQL Server.

/gustav

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----

> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 at 9:13 am, Anita Smith <anita at ddisolutions.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> > I have a database that I am converting from Access ADP to ODBC.
> >
> > I am coming across some issues with editing of records causing write
> > conflicts in the tables with only one user editing records. I have
> > changed all my bit fields to default and not allowing nulls as this
> > can cause this problem.
> >
> > I am not having much luck - however adding a timestamp field to the
> > tables fixes the problem perfectly. I am now in the dilemma that I
> > don't want to add this field to my replicated table in the fear of
> > buggering up the synchronisation (I don't want to ruin my Christmas).
> >
> > Is there anyone out there with any experience regarding adding
> > timestamp fields in replicated databases? I will note that the table
> > in question is only replicated one way - i.e. the subscribers don't edit
> > the records.
> >
> > Anita
--
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
https://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com