> -----Original Message----- > From: Leyne, Sean [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Jueves, 20 de Marzo de 2014 18:05 > > > - Creating user objects with RDB$ prefix should be > forbidden (at least until > > we implement schemas). > > Why? > > RDB$System_Flag already exists in RDB$Relations, which > identify true system defined objects, why is it necessary to > prevent the use of the prefix by a user?
Because there are users who have created RDB$ things and couldn't delete them. In some place, the code assumed a system object. I didn't research where, but it seems a valid report. Besides, RDB$ is not a new invention, it's been always there, just stopping people from traps they create for themselves is not a bad idea. What is the idea of using RDB$ prefix for app development, confuse someone looking at the objects in the db? > I think you missed: > > - Can/should user create additional columns in System tables? > (ie. Create_datetime, Change_datetime -- for a simple schema > change tracking function) > > - Can/should user create their own triggers on System tables? > (i.e. to detect row changes and set the above Create_datetime > and Change_datetime) Why such crap? Can you extend Oracle and SqlServer this way? If you want to log something, use DDL triggers. If you want to forbid/grant something, use official DDL. I repeat: if there's some action that's needed and that doesn't exist in DDL, we create the appropriate DDL. C. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book "Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field, this first edition is now available. Download your free book today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/13534_NeoTech Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
