paulruizendaal wrote:

>However, I tend to agree with you that it is not a good idea; all the
>more so since I don't see a serious use case for flashback queries.
>Perhaps that is a lack of imagination on my part.
>
>For the marketing check list (Ali's government client seems to work
>with such lists), the following could be done, entirely on the client
>side:
>
>- the application opens a separate connection handle. On this handle
>a new transaction is started every five minutes, holding on to each
>handle for a certain period, 5 days if need be.
>- if the application needs a flashback query, it selects the right
>transaction handle and executes the query in this context
>
>This works even with FB1.0. It would bloat the database (as it does
>in Oracle) and make no sense, but it would get the check mark in the
>pundit evaluation list.
>
>

I agree both that that could be done and it would be a bad idea. But I
given up the pursuit of checkmarks unless the particular feature has
merit. After many long years of experience, I eventually figured out
that checkmarks are usually counted to justify a decision already made,
and straining to to justify a dubious checkmark rarely effects the
outcome, and if the extremely rare case that it does, results in an
unhappy customer. I'd rather put time and effort into features that we
think important and useful and leave the Oracle pseudo-emulation to
somebody else.

--

Jim Starkey
Netfrastructure, Inc.
978 526-1376