Subject | Re: Lengthen RDB$FIELDS.RDB$FIELD_NAME? |
---|---|
Author | Adam |
Post date | 2007-12-13T00:58:04Z |
--- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, "Leyne, Sean" <Sean@...> wrote:
Only a small handful of people have voted for it or are watching the
tracker item.
Don't worry. We all appreciate the work that has gone into the engine,
and I certainly don't expect this sort of thing to be fixed in the
short term. Most of us have inherited crappy code at some time in our
programming history. I completely understand that the sorts of changes
that should be as a couple of constants and data types are rarely that
simple (particularly if good test case coverage is missing).
Adam
><snip>
> Adam,
>
> > > I am new to Firebird, and I am trying to port a database from SQL
> > > Server to Firebird. The SQL Server database has field names as long
> as
> > > 37 characters. RDB$FIELDS.RDB$FIELD_NAME has 31 characters, so I am
> > > getting an error about string truncation.
> > >
> > > The simplest solution would be changing the length of the column,
> but
> > > what are the dangers of that?
> >
> > Unfortunately, that is not going to work. I agree it is an annoying
> > limitation, but not too many others seem to think so.
>
> I don't know where you got that impression... This is a limitation</snip>
> which affects many people.
Only a small handful of people have voted for it or are watching the
tracker item.
Don't worry. We all appreciate the work that has gone into the engine,
and I certainly don't expect this sort of thing to be fixed in the
short term. Most of us have inherited crappy code at some time in our
programming history. I completely understand that the sorts of changes
that should be as a couple of constants and data types are rarely that
simple (particularly if good test case coverage is missing).
Adam