Subject | Re: Dropping a field problem |
---|---|
Author | deschenes_jacques |
Post date | 2005-05-11T19:42:14Z |
--- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, "Dmitry Yemanov"
<dimitr@u...> wrote:
RDB$115 neither DB$115 in both RDB$RELATION_FIELDS and RDB$FIELDS.
As suggested, I suppose I could just delete the entries in the
RDB$DEPENDENCIES system table and drop the field.
Thanks!
Jacques
<dimitr@u...> wrote:
> "deschenes_jacques" <deschenes_jacques@y...> wrote:of the
> >
> > I don't know what is that dependent_name 'DB$115'. Can anyone tell
> > me ?
>
> Search for a system generated domain RDB$115. You observe the result
> known old bug causing invalid dependency entries to be stored (firstI suspect a bug (first character lost) because there is no domain name
> character lost). This has been fixed in v1.5.
>
>
> Dmitry
RDB$115 neither DB$115 in both RDB$RELATION_FIELDS and RDB$FIELDS.
As suggested, I suppose I could just delete the entries in the
RDB$DEPENDENCIES system table and drop the field.
Thanks!
Jacques