> >> I do not consider the cross-database queries as something that should

be

> >> very flexible - at the end it is about integrating two databases, not
> >> about acting as router to another DB.
> >
> > Why not? This is how "Linked Servers" work in MS SQL Server.
>
> No problem, but how much infrastructure does it require to support it?
>
> > If Firebird can do this without having to define the tables "locally", I
> > think it's better.
>
> Well... as you see, we would need to find a solution for SQLDA thing.
> The issue that we're having with our 31-character limit on the object
> identifiers is directly related to this, since if we start passing
> 128-byte-long table names, we can easy cause AV in client applications.
> Same applies to extending XSQLVAR... we can't simply add new field to it
> without changing the XSQLDA version, but if we do - we have to be sure
> that every component suite is capable of supporting this.

Right, that's quite the change.

Why not add this while at the same time allowing for 128 byte identifiers
in Firebird databases as well?

> > Of course, things would get complex if you actually tried using

non-local

> > tables in Stored Procedures with regard to binding of columns and

run-time

> > errors.
>
> This can be handled by exception handling anyway... just another runtime
> error.

Well, reason I'm asking is because of compile time errors, really. Would
the engine understand the @ syntax and ignore anything metadata related
coming from that?

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