Dmitry Yemanov wrote:

>>It is important to metadata updates performed during DDL statements be
>>completely validated, but this shouldn't apply to direct system table
>>updates.
>>
>>
>
>Then we need to support every metadata update via DDL. As you know, this is
>not the case currently.
>
>

Yes, of course.

>>But to answer your question, if you backup a broken procedure, after a
>>restore, you still have a broken procedure.
>>
>>
>
>Currently, you get a partially restored database without any procedures.
>
>

That's not good enough. We need a database will everything defined but
not necessarily active.

>
>
>>The bottom line is that I consider unrestorable backups to be a
>>near-criminal offense.
>>
>>
>
>Everyone would second this. But our practice is that we never had reliable
>backups. Maybe during the past 10 years, maybe more...
>
>
>
>

At the time Borland acquired Interbase from Ashton-Tate, there was no
such thing as a non-restorable database. In fact, we considered a
non-restorable database in the same general category as a trashed
database (if anything, worse, since people depended on backup to protect
from trashed databases). There were always issues, but they were always
addressed. Since the Borland days, people seem to have accepted
non-restorable databases as a normal part of life. It isn't. It is an
instance of a deadly serious bug that hasn't gotten nearly the attention
that it should.

Any, returning to the original topic, I don't see any problems with
support UDFs in default value clauses for domains. Do you? I'm already
getting pressure to check the change in Vulcan. Any comments?

--

Jim Starkey
Netfrastructure, Inc.
978 526-1376