Subject | Re: [Firebird-Architect] Multi-level name space |
---|---|
Author | Arno Brinkman |
Post date | 2006-01-12T22:45:02Z |
Hi,
question is how can we make a reference between RDB$RELATIONS and the RDB$SCHEMAS tables?
Wouldn't it be better if internally was worked with RDB$RELATION_ID then?
Regards,
Arno Brinkman
ABVisie
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
General database development support:
http://www.databasedevelopmentforum.com
Firebird open source database (based on IB-OE) with many SQL-99 features :
http://www.firebirdsql.org
http://www.firebirdsql.info
http://www.fingerbird.de/
http://www.comunidade-firebird.org/
Support list for Firebird and Interbase users :
firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
Nederlandse firebird nieuwsgroep :
news://newsgroups.firebirdsql.info
>>Ofcourse i want easy a list of schema's already present in the database.Assuming we've declared a system table with schema's (which seems useful in many aspects). Now the
>>Also avoid using almost simular schema's due typos by different DBA's.
>>create table financial.invoice (...)
>>create table financiel.invoiceitems (...)
> I don't really object to requiring schemas to be declared, but unless
> there is some intrinsic benefit, it strikes me as make-work that would
> mostly serve to annoy users.
question is how can we make a reference between RDB$RELATIONS and the RDB$SCHEMAS tables?
>>> 3. A qualified table name is represented in the system tables asIf there are no further objections i can live with that, although it doesn't feel real good ;-)
>>> <schema>.<tablename> as in "myschema.mytable"
>>What about:
>>create table "myschema.mytable" ()
>> and
>>create table "myschema"."mytable" ()
> They would be indistinguishable, which isn't exactly the end of the
> world. If somebody wants to go out of his way to introduce ambiguity,
> well, that's what he's going to do. With luck, we'll figure out a way
> to make that fail on odd numbered releases and work on even numbered ones.
>>Adding RDB$SCHEMA_NAME (to stay consistent) to RDB$RELATIONSThat's right it requires a major rewrite of the system table queries.
>>Adding something like RDB$SCHEMAS (RDB$SCHEMA_NAME VARCHAR(xx) NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY, CREATOR
>>VARCHAR(31) DEFAULT CURRENT_USER)
> Not sufficiently backwards compatible. It would require that every
> query against system tables be rewritten. It also would allow utilities
> work work against old and new versions. It's the obvious way to handle
> it (sans RDB$, of course) if we were starting over scratch, and also the
> way I handled the issue in Netfrastructure. But the backwards
> compatibility problem should make it a non-starter for Firebird.
Wouldn't it be better if internally was worked with RDB$RELATION_ID then?
Regards,
Arno Brinkman
ABVisie
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
General database development support:
http://www.databasedevelopmentforum.com
Firebird open source database (based on IB-OE) with many SQL-99 features :
http://www.firebirdsql.org
http://www.firebirdsql.info
http://www.fingerbird.de/
http://www.comunidade-firebird.org/
Support list for Firebird and Interbase users :
firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
Nederlandse firebird nieuwsgroep :
news://newsgroups.firebirdsql.info