Hello all,
I tried searching for this, but couldn't find any results. I've got the following problem with the newly introduced attachment field: If a recordset containing an attachment field is deleted it appears that the underlying subrecordset containing the files isn't. Now, if the database is compacted and the auto value primary key is reused (of deleted rows) the files suddenly reappear. This behaviours is replicable and leads to severe problems within my application as suddenly the attachment field contains files that shouldn't be there. Additionally, the database is growing excessively as filedata is never removed if the row is deleted. Furthermore, the database cannot be compressed otherwise the above mentioned problem occurs which additionally expands the database Any ideas? Is that a confirmed bug already and any patch available?
As an additional info that may help bug tracing: the db containing the table with the attachment field is a linked db. I didn't try to replicate that behaviour with a table within the same db.
Thanks,
Mike
I tried searching for this, but couldn't find any results. I've got the following problem with the newly introduced attachment field: If a recordset containing an attachment field is deleted it appears that the underlying subrecordset containing the files isn't. Now, if the database is compacted and the auto value primary key is reused (of deleted rows) the files suddenly reappear. This behaviours is replicable and leads to severe problems within my application as suddenly the attachment field contains files that shouldn't be there. Additionally, the database is growing excessively as filedata is never removed if the row is deleted. Furthermore, the database cannot be compressed otherwise the above mentioned problem occurs which additionally expands the database Any ideas? Is that a confirmed bug already and any patch available?
As an additional info that may help bug tracing: the db containing the table with the attachment field is a linked db. I didn't try to replicate that behaviour with a table within the same db.
Thanks,
Mike