вт, 12 окт. 2021 г. в 18:03, Dimitry Sibiryakov <s...@ibphoenix.com>: > > Roman Simakov wrote 12.10.2021 16:55: > >> If this field is needed at all. Still there is no answer why tablespace > >> cannot be identified by name only except "it was done this way 40 years > >> ago". > > Why not to suggest PR for this refactoring? > > I understand that you insist on merging your existing code "as is" but I > think that it is better to write a right code from the beginning than refactor > it later.
I do not insist on including "as is" and we will adjust our code after this discussion to be as close as possible (ideally equal) in syntax, ODS and other. That's why we are discussing it. But I see no problem with the current implementation. You see. I assume that's historically but I have no answer why it was done in such way. I'm sure such experiments quite reasonable but let's not mix everything in one PR. I'm not sure that keeping page numbers in a transactional relation is a really excellent idea. -- Roman Simakov Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
