Alexander V.Nevsky wrote:

> Brian and All, let's put all in proper place and stop noise here.
>
>1. Metadata changes should be made in exlusive access mode, like we it
>or not.
>

No, it should be always be safe to perform metadata updates at any
time. I'm not necessarily saying that it is, but that it should be, and
if it isn't, then it's a bug.

>3. It is recommended to have restorable backup before performing
>script on production database. Not necessary to sit and wait it's
>finish subsequently for every customer, we can write batch which
>perform backup, perform script and on errors call us.
>

This may be good practice, but it shouldn't be necessary. Metadata
updates should be safe. Any script can fail because of user error, but
it should always be possible to fix the error and continue.

The converse -- depending on metadata updates to remain pending between
DDL statements -- is not safe.

>If you are
>pretty sure customer's database is clean from corruptions or tons of
>garbage which can disturb script execution, or changes are small
>enough and you are sure you can repair possible damage, you can don't
>make backup, reasonability of the risk level is part of your
>professionalism.
>

Again, that may be good DBA practice, but the original stated goal of
Interbase was to make DBAs unnecessary.

>5. First specific FB-related point - in the section of metadata
>changes Foreign Keys can be created only if changes of both tables are
>commited. I will be glad if this will be changed somewhere in time but
>I can live with it and can't call this "bug".
>

It sounds like a bug, it smells like a bug, it ain't a feature, so I'd
call it a bug.

--

Jim Starkey
Netfrastructure, Inc.
978 526-1376