Paul Schmidt said:

> On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 18:20, Scott Taylor wrote:
>> At 14:09 07/23/03, you wrote:
>> I think a database would have to be very damaged
>> to not restore.
>
> Actually it's simple to do, take a field that allows NULL fields,
> change the system tables so that it no longer allows NULL fields,
> neglect to check that there are no NULL fields in the database.

Oh, so purposely shoot yourself in the proverbial foot? That just
silly, why would anyone do that? I like to play in fields of the
RDB$SysTable, but even I'm not that stupid.

> First time you restore, when it finds a NULL it will explode faster
> then a Ford Pinto rear-ended by a Mack sized truck.

Not so, everything else is restored, only the records that have errors
will not restore as would be with any RDBMS. Nothing has blown up,
the RDBMS has done exactly as you asked it: do not allow records in
this table that have field X as null.

> 99% of the time a restore fails this is the reason why.

Therefore 99% of DB failures are do to user stupidity? That I can
believe. =P


Scott.