Never mind.  I didn't read well enough about the DUPLICATE records.
Can't be a manual master.  Oh well.

Kevin Newman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Newman, Kevin: [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 1998 10:29 AM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: Use of RECNO
> 
> Ahh, my mail is acting normally again!  
> 
> Wirt, I wouldn't say agitated, just concerned.  ;-) 
> 
> Also, isn't there a concern about migrating secondaries if this is a
> manual master?  It has been a while since I've done deletes with
> RECNO, (if this is indeed the internal record number and not some data
> element in the set) and I remember something about secondaries
> migrating to another position and the RECNO changing.  Has this been
> fixed over the years or is this still a thing to watch out for?
> 
> Kevin Newman 
> 
>       -----Original Message----- 
> From:   Wirt Atmar [SMTP:[log in to unmask]] 
> Sent:   Tuesday, July 07, 1998 9:39 AM 
> To:     [log in to unmask] 
> Subject:        Re: Use of RECNO 
> 
>       snip 
> 
>       Proceeding on the assumption that I misinterpreted what Michael
> was asking (in 
> addition to Ted Ashton's posting, Kevin Newman was agitated enough to
> actually 
> call me :-), no one has yet answered Michael's most basic question:
> "Is the 
> list of record numbers stable?" 
> 
>       snip 
>