Subject Re: [Firebird-Architect] NOT UPDATABLE fields
Author Adriano dos Santos Fernandes
Jim Starkey wrote:

>On reflection, I don't like this feature for two reasons. First, I
>consider it unnecessary. Constraints exist to protect data integrity,
>not servce as a censor for application programs.
Logical data integrity is important too.

> If you don't want your
>application to reference a field, don't reference the field.
Maybe when someone invented NOT NULL other said "if field don't accept
NULL, don't store NULL in it".

> While the
>database may legimately care whether or not a field is changed and under
>what circumstance it may be changed, I don't think it should do so my
>limiting DML. Second, I consider the feature unwise. Best of
>intentions aside, circumstances are going to exist where you are going
>to change your mind. Maybe the requiements on an application will
>change, or somebody will screw up and an ad hoc program to fix things
>will be required. When this happens, and it will, you will need to
>disable this feature, and, not having learned your lesson, will want to
>re-enable it later. This is going to chew up record format versions, a
>scarce resource.
Previous and future records is not dependent on the flag, hence new
record format is not necessary.