Hi,

> If I remember well this is the way Oracle does it and I have used

it many

> times. It measn I do not have to drop dependant procdures, views

etc. They

> just become invalid and I can change them at a later stage,
> I'm all for it, it makes changes a lot easier.

True - Oracle works this way. It's much easier to work with when
doing several changes.

My guess is that for procedures and views, you could still save the
view/proc source in the RDB$VIEW_SOURCE and RDB$PROCEDURE_SOURCE and
mark the view 'invalid' in the RDB$FLAGS field...

OK, I do not really have an idea :) ... but it's a possibility...

Comments anyone?

Martijn Tonies
InterBase Workbench - the developer tool for InterBase
http://www.interbaseworkbench.com

Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com

"This is an object-oriented system.
If we change anything, the users object."

> regards
> Paul Sjoerdsma
>
> At 2001-04-06, you wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >although the subject may sound weird, it makes sense to me... Let

me

> >explain:
> >
> >Sometimes, you want to create a procedure, save it (to the db) and
> >work on
> >it later - change a few other things in the db for example. Of
> >course, an
> >invalid stored procedure cannot be used. There would be a
> >flag 'invalid' set
> >and an exception would be raised when trying to use it.
> >
> >In addition to the above idea, if you have a few dependent
> >procedures/views/triggers, they could be marked invalid when the
> >procedure
> >interface (parameters) change.
> >
> >For views, pretty much the same. I have a db with a few views,
> >dependent on
> >one another. When I want to modify a view, I have to drop it. When
> >there are
> >dependent views, I cannot drop it - but there's no ALTER VIEW... In
> >this
> >case, a view would be marked 'invalid' and would fail when trying

to

> >execute - but at least it lets me alter the original view. From
> >there, I can
> >go and change the dependant views accordingly...
> >
> >Any comments?
> >