> I got the reasons, no problem here.
>
> The point I was talking about is how to (if there is a way) change the
> system tables names, create a system schema, and maintain backwards
> compatibility with previous clients.
>
> From what I read on this discussion, the majority of people like a
> column for schema name and another for the table name on the relations
> table. You argued about backward compatiblity, what I suggested is a way
> that it could be achieved (at least I see this way).
>
> The old clients will just see a "compound" table name trough the view
> rdb$relations, new clients will use the real system tables on the
> "System" schema.
>
> Why views doesn't solve this point ?

As I said in my previous reply to this -- excellent use of views!

Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL, Oracle & MS SQL
Server
Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com
Database development questions? Check the forum!
http://www.databasedevelopmentforum.com