At 04:38 PM 5/24/01 -0400, David Jencks wrote:

>
>Does this mean if you remove a column from a table you can break lots of
>things that depend on it?
>
>Clearly we need to keep track of all dependencies somehow.
>
>choices are:
>
>use names, and if name changes update all dependent info,
>
>use abstract ids, and have a possible extra layer of indirection
>everywhere.
>
>Either way, we need to keep track of the dependency info so if something
>goes away we can adjust the state of all dependent objects.
>
>Are there other choices?
>So far I lean towards the simplicity of just using names, but I certainly
>don't know enough of the internals to make an informed judgement.
>

I think it makes sense to go back to the requirements. Why does
somebody need to change a name? Certainly requirements change
that dictate extension of string size or datatype upgrade or
addition of new fields. But why should a database system go
out of its way to support a name change?

Jim Starkey