× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



Tom Liotta wrote:

So, the question remains -- WAS there ever a reason /in fact/ for non-keyed PFs?

(Again IIRC,) the SAVOBJ issue tended to appear during an attempted RSTOBJ. I.e., a save could complete without a clear warning of a problem; and when a problem was later noticed, the backup copy was already "damaged". Perhaps something like that would be an origin of the practice that eventually grew larger than the reality?

Sounds about right. A PF with an index has more to go wrong than a PF without an index.

Back in the S/38 days, OS crashes, disk and power failures were far more common then they are now. I recall seeing an index rebuild fail where the LF index was defined as unique and some how the PF contents did not meet the unique criteria after system recovery. With an LF index, you would fix the PF data first and then recreate/addlfm the LF. Not sure how this would have been fixed if this had been an indexed PF. This problem may have been specific to CPF R5 or R6.


Keith






As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.