Roman Rokytskyy wrote:

>>I think it would creating yet another version of the XSQLDA that would
>>need to be supported in perpetuity for no gain.
>>
>>
>
>One more question: what are XSQLDA.sqldaid and XSQLDA.sqldabc fields
>for? API Reference says "Reserved for future use". 8 bytes of
>rdb$db_key and 4 bytes of record version fit nicely here. Maybe it is
>already that very "future use"?
>
>
>

One is supposed to hold name name of the block and the other the
allocated length. I stole the original SQLDA from the DB2 DSQL
interface, which had the fields, lock, stock, and barrel. I don't think
Interbase ever did anything with them, but there may be ancient code
sitting around somewhere that dutifully filled them in.

Why in god's name do you want the record version????

--

Jim Starkey
Netfrastructure, Inc.
978 526-1376