Subject Re: [ib-support] Disappointed in Interbase (long)
Author Louis van Alphen
Claudio, thanks for the reply...

At 04:41 2001-08-30 -0400, you wrote:
>Let me be clear and this is my opinion: the whole v5 cycle is a royal
>nightmare. Only IB5.6 is better, but not very good. The few people I know
>that are happily running IB for years here use IB4.2.

I really wasn't aware of this. I do follow the lists, but this fact haven't
really surfaced. I suppose we have been 'lucky' up to now. Part of it is
that I developed the previous system myself. So there was only 1 user doing
DDL updates.

> > The new project involves a team of 10 developers each developing their
> > of the system. Each developer is using IBExpert to do the necessary
> > metadata changes. These changes include table creation, adding/dropping
> > columns altering SPs and triggers, etc. In short, we are hammering the DB
> > with metadata changes. Unfortunately, it seems that IB does not like
> > this... The typical problems we have encountered include:
>And those problems are known for years. Metadata changes robustness was one
>of the goals of the NewCo that never happened.

MMmm also new to me..

>No need to backup/restore. This is BY DESIGN. Only one version of a
>procedure can be loaded and run at once. The first time the proc is called,
>it's loaded. It remains the same until all connections are finished and
>people reconnect. Then the new BLR is loaded. Do you think that it would be
>funny is there are several inconsistent version of the same code being
>executed at the same time? Maybe it could be reloaded, but only if nobody is
>executing it.

Again some news. I will definitely try the disconnect/reconnect trick. I
think this should (maybe it is) be on a FAQ somwehere or in the manual...

> > I have to admit that we initially made the connection string mistake, but
> > we resolved that and did a B&R. We also did copy the DB all over the place
> > on our network. The machines we are using are Win98SE, NT4 SP6 and Win2K
> > Beta. If this is part of the problem, I will admit guilt. But why do the
> > problems prevail even after a B&R and the DB staying on the server?
>In some cases, yes. I would have to know the complexity of your schema to
>give more opinions. For example, total number of tables, procs, triggers,
>indexes, views, etc.

Well, we have several hundred table and several hundred SPs, no views.

We have changed our approach. Only one person responsible for doing the
changes. All changes by other developers are made on their own local copy
and changes to the master by means of a script run by the 'DBA'.


L.J. van Alphen
Basix Automation

E-mail: lja@...
Tel: (+27) (0)21-409 7018

P.O. Box 6330
Cape Town
South Africa