Arno Brinkman wrote:

>Assuming we've declared a system table with schema's (which seems useful in many aspects). Now the
>question is how can we make a reference between RDB$RELATIONS and the RDB$SCHEMAS tables?
>
>

No good way at all. If I had been smarter in 1982, we wouldn't have
this problem now. But we do, and the best compromise will be the best
solution.

>>>Adding RDB$SCHEMA_NAME (to stay consistent) to RDB$RELATIONS
>>>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$, of course) if we were starting over scratch, and also the
>>way I handled the issue in Netfrastructure. But the backwards
>>compatibility problem should make it a non-starter for Firebird.
>>
>>
>
>That's right it requires a major rewrite of the system table queries.
>Wouldn't it be better if internally was worked with RDB$RELATION_ID then?
>
>
>

Too late for that now. We need to keep existing programs, utilities,
and tools working. Storing a concatenated name is backward compatible,
addresses the problem, and hasn't been yet shown to introduce even worse
problems (I'm holding my breath here).

--

Jim Starkey
Netfrastructure, Inc.
978 526-1376