On 16/12/2013 05:08, Alex Peshkoff wrote:
I prefer to:
alter user x password 'y' set a = 'a', b = 'b';
Me too.
Adriano
--
Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT
organizations
On 16/12/2013 05:08, Alex Peshkoff wrote:
I prefer to:
alter user x password 'y' set a = 'a', b = 'b';
Me too.
Adriano
And me too.
Will the new name-value pairs also be retrievable from sec$users? And if
yes, how ? Text blob with all pairs?
Kind regards,
Robert
- NL
Will the new name-value pairs also be retrievable from sec$users?
Yes, certainly.
And if
yes, how ? Text blob with all pairs?
Yes.
It was nice to have some system stored procedure parses BLOB and
returns a
set of keys and values
Certainly BLOB with pairs name=value is a compromise,
16.12.2013 14:38, Simonov Denis wrote:
Will the new name-value pairs also be retrievable from sec$users? And if
yes, how ? Text blob with all pairs?
It was nice to have some system stored procedure parses BLOB and returns a
set of keys and values
Wouldn't a table e.g. SEC$USER_ATTRIBUTES be
On 12/16/13 14:50, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
16.12.2013 8:08, Alex Peshkoff wrote:
And what do you think about a case when (I use old syntax for an example):
alter user x [set] password 'y' [set] a [to] 'a', b [to] 'b';
Where should that set be placed? I prefer to:
alter user x password
Den 2013-12-16 11:50 skrev Dimitry Sibiryakov såhär:
16.12.2013 8:08, Alex Peshkoff wrote:
And what do you think about a case when (I use old syntax for an example):
alter user x [set] password 'y' [set] a [to] 'a', b [to] 'b';
Where should that set be placed? I prefer to:
alter user x
16.12.2013 12:08, Alex Peshkoff wrote:
On 12/16/13 14:50, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
IMHO, for syntax consistency set should be placed before all
changing parameters.
I.e. if password identifies user record to be changed, set after it is
ok, but if
password is a subject to change, set
On 12/16/13 15:09, Kjell Rilbe wrote:
words, a syntax like this would seem a bit more robust:
create user x password 'y' attributes (a = 'a', b = 'b');
alter user x set password 'yy' attributes (a = 'aa', b = 'bb');
OK except (on my mind) word attributes
I assume attribute identifiers can
Alex Peshkoff peshk...@mail.ru писал(а) в своём письме Mon, 16 Dec 2013
15:07:13 +0400:
On 12/16/13 14:58, Simonov Denis wrote:
Dmitry Yemanov firebi...@yandex.ru писал(а) в своём письме Mon, 16 Dec
2013 14:48:12 +0400:
16.12.2013 14:38, Simonov Denis wrote:
Will the new name-value pairs
16.12.2013 12:18, Alex Peshkoff wrote:
On 12/16/13 15:14, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
Why one is needed? You can tell whether it is fixed or optional
property by name, can't
you?..
To make SQL operator human-readable. And must say I like this suggestion
create user x password 'y'
On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 12:28:36 +0100, Dimitry Sibiryakov s...@ibphoenix.com
wrote:
16.12.2013 12:18, Alex Peshkoff wrote:
On 12/16/13 15:14, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
Why one is needed? You can tell whether it is fixed or optional
property by name, can't
you?..
To make SQL operator
Den 2013-12-16 12:28 skrev Dimitry Sibiryakov såhär:
16.12.2013 12:18, Alex Peshkoff wrote:
On 12/16/13 15:14, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
Why one is needed? You can tell whether it is fixed or optional
property by name, can't
you?..
To make SQL operator human-readable. And must say I
16.12.2013 12:32, Mark Rotteveel wrote:
A user needs to have a password, it does not need to have attribute (or
maybe: extended properties is a better name).
So what? Anything prevent FB from complaining for missed required attributes
in list?..
--
WBR, SD.
Den 2013-12-16 12:40 skrev Dimitry Sibiryakov såhär:
16.12.2013 12:34, Kjell Rilbe wrote:
When you want to introduce a new fixed
attribute, X users will complain about clashes with their already-in-use
user defined attributes.
In this case you suggest to do something like this: alter user
On 12/15/13 05:27, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
Hi!
Syntax for attributes for users (CORE-4290) is not good IMO.
Current:
create user x password 'y' [set] a [to] 'a', b [to] 'b';
alter user x [set] a [to] 'a', b [to] 'b';
alter user x drop a, b;
In think syntax below is better:
Hi!
Syntax for attributes for users (CORE-4290) is not good IMO.
Current:
create user x password 'y' [set] a [to] 'a', b [to] 'b';
alter user x [set] a [to] 'a', b [to] 'b';
alter user x drop a, b;
In think syntax below is better:
create user x password 'y' set a = 'a', b = 'b';
alter user
16 matches
Mail list logo
