thanks, MilusJunod – i was thinking, ‘i’m sure i must be doing something wrong!’ – but, as it stands, it doubles the number of files in the interface.
Still, though, i’m sure Maurizio was well aware of this implication, and must have intended a ‘write-only’ (not read) aspect of this quite useful (if fully implemented) feature.
In my case, it would be enough to not ‘read’ from the disk where the backup resides. In other words, don’t update the interface with the “files on disk K”
That would be another variable in the SELECT statement, and incur more overhead, but, of course, the “Folder Synchronization’ stored procedure is already (in my case) doubling the number of files tracked.
thanks again for you response, MilusJunod