Ann Harrison wrote:

> It's a classic problem with all databases, I would think. Alisdair
> is correct. The reason for not opening a database on a remote disk
> is that we can't know whether the database is already open elsewhere.
> That's true in the "classic" architecture because each attachment
> opens the database file, so file sharing is essential. In the
> superserver, we may be able to fudge that rule.

Could another compromise be that the access method permits a database to
be readied if it is on a remote filesystem, BUT sets the read-only
database flag when it does so?
I'm not suggesting that the access method change the flag in the
database, only in its attachment to the database, to pretend that the
read-only flag is set.

Maybe a better way to handle that is to change ibserver so that it
permits a ready of a remote database _only_ if the read-only flag in
that database is already set. This would allow DBAs to place gdb files
on mapped drives, if the users really need access to it through that
connection.

Bill Karwin