Sasha Matijasic wrote:

> I can't tell you if it's dangerous or not, but what you are asking is simply *not a desired feature*. Of course, I can't speak for others, and certainly can not speak for firebird dev team, but I'm pretty sure that's the common opinion on that question. And I would be more happy if efforts are continued in the same direction they are going now with all the really cool features in 2.5 and 3.0 branches.
>
>
> Sasha
>

I am not part of the dev team, but I think that removing the 64kb limit
would be something pretty annoying to do (change dataypes all over),
manage internal structures to handle that new size, etc. It could be
potentially dangerous, since once one place was forgotten would be a
mess... I think it's something like increasing the object names size, a
desired feature, but not top priority (IMHO greater objects names would
be very well received). In fact, if I a major revamp would be made on
internal system tables I would propouse to use ObjectID's instead of
names to reference and create dependencies, etc. The major problem I see
with those changes is that would break backward compatibility, but it
could be solved creating views that mimics the old system tables, and
the new ones would be created with new names fb$something, the major
diferences would be hiden by the views.

Increase the IN limit, would be better than have it as it is now but
always there is work arounds as you, me and others said, so it's very
low priority IMHO.

see you !

--
Alexandre Benson Smith
Development
THOR Software e Comercial Ltda
Santo Andre - Sao Paulo - Brazil
www.thorsoftware.com.br