Hi,

>> 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
>> )
>
> Do we speak about fixed-level (two-level as in Oracle or three-level as in
> the SQL spec) or multi-level namespaces? If the latter (which I consider
> more flexible), then RDB$SCHEMA should represent a tree. And all system
> metadata should reference it via some artificial key instead of the schema
> name.

I would stay by two-level, because the thirth-level should be the database (alias) reference and the fourth the
database-engine.

SELECT * FROM <db-engine>.<database>.<schema>.<object>

Ok, i think we won't support db-engine and database (catalog in SQL-spec) in the near future, but shouldn't we be
prepared for that?

Regards,
Arno Brinkman
ABVisie

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
General database developer 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

Support list for Interbase and Firebird users:
firebird-support@yahoogroups.com

Nederlandse firebird nieuwsgroep:
news://newsgroups.firebirdsql.info