Subject | Re: FireBird 2: Max length of names for tables, fields, constraints, etc |
---|---|
Author | Adam |
Post date | 2006-11-22T12:07:07Z |
--- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, "Nols Smit" <nols@...> wrote:
an hour and a number of Slashdottings. Yes, it's quite stable."
chars for table names, etc. is the problem why FireBird can't be used.
If it were as simple as bumping up a const called MaxObjectNameLength
then it would have been done long ago. It is at least in the roadmap.
Adam
>newspaper in Lawrence, Kansas, USA.
> Thanks for the replies. The reason why I'm asked the question:
>
> I stumbled across Django (http://www.djangoproject.com/).
>
> Django was developed at World Online, the Web department of a
>built on Django have weathered traffic spikes of over one million hits
> Quoted from their FAQS (http://www.djangoproject.com/documentation/faq/)
> "World Online has been using Django for more than three years. Sites
an hour and a number of Slashdottings. Yes, it's quite stable."
>MySQL (where's my pack of Valoid).
> But it seems it's bounded to the build-in SQLite 3, PostgreSQL and
>(http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/1261), the max. length of 31
> According to this posting
chars for table names, etc. is the problem why FireBird can't be used.
If it were as simple as bumping up a const called MaxObjectNameLength
then it would have been done long ago. It is at least in the roadmap.
Adam