At 10/29/2006 08:04 PM, Ed Lazor wrote:
That seems unreasonably harsh.
I can see what you mean, but don't take it that way. I was trying to
help.
Sorry, Ed, I had intended my reply to be friendly as well. I'm
allergic to smiley-face icons, but I should have tried harder to
convey my tone. Dang this poker-faced email!
What in your view is wrong with a union query that preserves an
indicator of which component table a particular record comes from?
Read earlier in the thread. He's talking about adding a field to the
table and that the value of this field in every single record will be
the name of the table the record belongs to. I said I would
definitely not recommend doing that.
Me neither. You're right. I was only referencing his next email in
which he said,
Would you suggest to use a extra field to hold the table name as default?
which I thought was a great idea, but only because I thought he meant
the query.
Warm regards,
Paul
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
