ср, 6 окт. 2021 г. в 22:17, Dimitry Sibiryakov <s...@ibphoenix.com>: > > Roman Simakov wrote 06.10.2021 20:43: > > Let me not describe every field. I hope most of them are obvious. > > No, they aren't.
ok A new table RDB$TABLESPACES # keeps metadata of tablespaces. RDB$TABLESPACE_ID - SMALLINT # internally it will be pagespaceid. probably can be avoided. RDB$TABLESPACE_NAME - CHAR (63) # name of a tablespace RDB$SECURITY_CLASS - CHAR (63) # security class for tablespace RDB$SYSTEM_FLAG - SMALLINT # reserved RDB$DESCRIPTION - BLOB SUBTYPE TEXT SEGMENT SIZE 80 #description of a tablespace RDB$OWNER_NAME - CHAR (63) # owner of a tablespace RDB$FILE_NAME - VARCHAR (255) # file where a tablespace data are located RDB$OFFLINE - SMALLINT # reserved for future implementation offline tablespaces RDB$READ_ONLY - SMALLINT # reserved for future implementation read only tablespaces A new field in RDB$INDICES: RDB$TABLESPACE_NAME - CHAR (63) # name of a tablespace A new field in RDB$RELATION_FIELDS: RDB$TABLESPACE_NAME - CHAR (63) # name of a tablespace New fields in RDB$RELATIONS: RDB$TABLESPACE_NAME - CHAR (63) # name of a tablespace RDB$POINTER_PAGE - INTEGER # a number of the first pointer page of a relation RDB$ROOT_PAGE - INTEGER # a number of the root page of a relation > ID is not referenced anywhere and seems to have no purpose at all. Probably it could be removed and pagespace IDs will be generated internally. > TABLESPACE_NAME being CHAR is pointless. CHAR was used in ancient times but > new fields should prefer VARCHAR. It's equal to other SQL_IDENTIFIERs > FILE_NAME limited to 255 characters is strange in modern world at least. It refers to the existing fld_file_name. I don't mind increasing it but think it's not a topic for tablespaces. > > RDB$SYSTEM_FLAG is not currently used but I suppose it would be useful one > > day. > > What for? There isn't going to be an automatically created tablespace for > internal purposes, right? Where in host filesystem would it be created?.. I've not designed it and am not designing it now. > > OFFLINE and READ_ONLY are a kind of physical properties and supposed > > to be used but not in this merge request anycase. > > Mostly I wanted to know the reason why they are SMALLINT instead of > BOOLEAN. I think you are right and it must be BOOLEAN. > > These fields are necessary for reliable implementation of moving data > > pages to another tablespace. You'll be able to understand their > > meaning in code. > > Documentation also must contain the code?.. After documentation you will ask me why they are needed) For documentation purposes I've provided a short description above. -- Roman Simakov Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
