Ok, I understand that using a FB 1.5.x server with an IB 5.6 client
isn't "officially" supported, but probably works and I can use it at
my own risk.

Now, has anybody here ever used this specific configuration ? Any
troubles to report ? Crashed ? Mishandled requests ? ...

And unfortunately, I'm stuck with this IB 5.6 server, I cannot switch
it for a FB one.

Patrick

--- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, Jason Dodson <jasond@b...> wrote:
>
> If an incompatible client can corrupt a database, we are all in a
world of trouble.
>
> At best, the server should fail on requests that are incompatible. I
couldn't
> imagine a remote db mechanism to where it allowed you to write
anything anywhere
> to a database file.
>
> Jason
>
> Jonathan Neve wrote:
> > patrickolinet wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Hi all,
> >>
> >>I'm looking for informations about Firebird 1.5.x and Interbase 5.6
> >>compatibility :
> >>
> >>1/ Could you connect from a IB 5.6 client to a remote FB 1.5.x
server ?
> >>
> >>2/ Could you connect from a FB 1.5.x client to a remote IB 5.6
server ?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > These might work, but it's not officially supported. So that means
that
> > in practice, it probably wouldn't be reliable, and you might come up
> > with bugs and/or database corruption. The same goes (as I
understand it)
> > for any two Interbase or Firebird versions. The client and server
> > versions should always be matched.
> >
> >
> >>3/ Let's say that I have a IB 5.6 database. Does that work to put it
> >>on a FB 1.5.x server (without any backup/restore procedure) ? If
> >>that's work, then can I put back the same database file later on a IB
> >>5.6 server, even if it's been modified by the FB server ?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > No, this won't work at all.
> >
> > If you backup the IB 5.6 database (using gbak from IB 5.6) you
will be
> > able to restore it under FB 1.5.
> > If you backup the FB 1.5 database (using gbak from FB 1.5) you
won't be
> > able to restore it under IB 5.6
> > If you don't do any backups, you won't be able to read the
database in
> > either direction.
> >
> >
> >>1/ and 2/ seem to work, but I'm not 100% sure that everything work.
> >>There may be some compatibility issues that I haven't been through.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Highly likely, though if it isn't for a production database you could
> > give it a try.
> >
>