[log in to unmask] wrote:

...
>Would there be any point in establishing a standard -- either a directory
>or a naming convention -- which would say "whenever 'x' is to be backed up,
>ensure all of these files are included"? It would have to be something that,
>for the current situation, the database maintenance utilities could update
>automatically. (One could argue that the root file already serves this
>purpose, but it just seems wacky that a backup utility must examine the
>contents of a given file type to know what REALLY needs to happen.)

Wacky?  With a name such as "root", one can hardly get more "fundamental" :-)

Perhaps I am just showing my biases (nothing new), but I perceive the
HP3000 as an IMAGE-database machine.  Everything else on the HP3000 is
there just to support IMAGE databases.  So, an IMAGE database's root file
is certainly an excellent repository for fundamental information about that
database (including information that backup utilities should heed).


>(Who was the Nobel Prize winner who said, "In order to have a great
>idea, it helps to have a lot of ideas" ? ;)

Was it Fred White?  :-)     If you want to get him started, speak with him
about partial store/restore operations...


Alfredo