He,

I'm agree with you: all tables in a unique firebird file is the best choice.

My problem is that I've numerous programs that utilize one firebird file
each.

There are tables that are drawn for a specific program, but there are
some tables that are "common" to all programs (example:
"municipalities").  An user can utilize one program, two programs, four
programs, and so on, on the same computer and each program hav its
database.fdb: if I must vary a value of one "common tables", I must send
an update for every program and to each user; but if the "common tables"
are in a unique, separate database, I can update one file only.

There are also "static" tables containing storical movements, and is not
necessary periodically to back-up them.

These are the reasons that push me to look for a solution, I hope to
have been clear.

For release 2.5 and not 3.o, I have been studyng Firebird for some
months, and I've not experience: I now plan the job to develop, later I
will verify the new releases.

Best regards

Antonio BIANCA




Il 12/09/2018 23:42, Karol Bieniaszewski liviuslivius@...
[firebird-support] ha scritto:

>
> Hi,
>
> 1. Why not single Firebird database with all tables?
> 2. Why not recent Firebird which is FB3 not FB2.5?
>
> Pozdrawiam,
>
> Karol Bieniaszewski
>
>

---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus