Geert Bevin wrote:

> This doesn't work well in the concept of an auto-deployed and
> multi-database web application. Typically, you start the web
> application, which starts up the connection pool. Then when the
> administrator that's installing it connects first to it, he doesn't see
> the application but goes through a wizard to setup preferences and
> select which database to use. Firebird is an alternative we're trying
> to add, but MySQL, PostgreSQL, Oracle and HypersonicSQL are already
> supported and working well. When the database is selected, the initial
> structure is installed. Of course this structure has been design and
> developed elsewhere beforehand. It's however very logical to create a
> proven structure in one go inside a running application. It's weird
> that Firebird prohibits this solely for foreign keys.

Bottom line - how stable are any of those databases after making the
sort of complex metadata changes that are possible in Firebird?

Oracle is probably the only one that could be relied on, but even there
they realise that the 'professional' way of making major updates is NOT
to do it on live data - but you need extra oracle staff to manage that :)

Personally I have come across several examples of changing or applying
constraints that failed because of 'unexpected' data in the database.
Even after you can prove that a change will not cause problems - sods
law says it will ;)

--
Lester Caine
-----------------------------
L.S.Caine Electronic Services