On Thursday 02 August 2007 13:47, Roman Rokytskyy wrote:

> > Let's decide, what is our database - schema or catalog? On the one hand,
> > looking at standard it seems it's sooner catalog rather then schema (for
> > example, it has something like required INFORMATION_SCHEMA, our RDB$*
> > tables). On the other hand, in our SQL 'CREATE DATABASE' and 'CREATE
> > SCHEMA' are synonyms.
>
> For me Firebird database is a catalog with only one schema there.
> Hopefully it will be extended to handle multiple schemas.

Great, here we have an agreement. The only thing not decided is what to do
with backward compatibility. :-((((

Anyway, as was noticed by lacakus:

> AFAIK SQL:2003 defines only :
> <catalog>.<schema>.<table>

And that's OK for me.

> >>> Next, let's look at it from releases POV. Modifications, required in
> >>> optimizer to make it use external datasources, are far not trivial
> >>> (Arno, Vlad, correct me if I'm wrong here). Therefore feature can't be
> >>> planned for something earlier then first version AFTER merged 3.0
> >>> version. And it's quite real to prepare requirements for API changes up
> >>> to that time.
> >>
> >> Don't know... at the moment I tend to say that it won't work. Look on
> >> our 2.1 release. It includes everything that did not fit the 2.0 plan,
> >> but was already implemented. We have some delay here as well, but in
> >> general things look pretty nice. The 3.0 is also based on something that
> >> does already exist (both Vulcan and 2.1 are real, however there will be
> >> tons of things to fix). Planing API change for 3+ version without having
> >> it already implemented, from my POV, won't work (remember, we're already
> >> in 3.0 time - the 2.1 is done). Therefore, at best it will make it into
> >> 3++, and that is end of 2009-2010.
> >
> > Seems to be so, but anyway we can't add new features too both 2.1 and
> > 3.0. Or we will never release.
>
> The 2.1 and 3.0 are closed for features, that is clear.
>
> I was thinking about 3+ version with external data sources (at least
> "external datasources lite") and full-blown version as in current RFC in
> 3++ version.

And we will have to support that syntax in the future forever? Not to say I
like it very much, but if unavoidable...