Subject Re: [firebird-support] Fb 1.5.4 - RDB$RELATION_FIELDS not in RDB$RELATIONS
Author Martijn Tonies
Hello Aage,

> Martijn Tonies wrote:
> ...
> >> [SET:]
> >> There's just no way that Aage (the only person that has worked with
> >> table in question) would have fiddled with system tables this way on
> >> main database unless we had encountered serious problems.
> >
> > Doesn't Aage use IBExpert? I'm not saying IBE caused this, but we do
> > know it does more with the system tables than, for example, DBW.
> No. He uses IB_SQL (and scripts created in ConText or some such tool).
> Occasionally I use FlameRobin, or I walk over to Svein Erling to have
> him do "something complicated".

OK :-)

> According to the best of my recollection:
> Some tables and a procedure were created.
> At some point I decided that the tables should have "better" names, so
> . SP was dropped
> . tables were dropped
> . new tables created
> . new SP created ("create or alter ...")
> I cannot recall whether I disconnected between the operations - I
> usually do in these circumstances. Maybe the server should have been
> stopped as well (because of the SP change)? Or, waiting a few
> minutes before reconnecting???

No, this really shouldn't matter. Any database server that depends on
this should be ... well, you cannot smack a database server in the head,
I guess.

> After some rounds of changes on the test db (and also on the
> production db) not much seems clear as to what happened, when, or how.
> I thought (hoped) that creating/dropping objects that no one else
> uses would by safe (when using SQL).


Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL, NexusDB, Oracle &
MS SQL Server
Upscene Productions
My thoughts:
Database development questions? Check the forum!