03.06.2016 10:09, liviuslivius wrote:
>
> PS. why this is not compatibile? I can think about procedures and triggers
> but alredy existing triggers and procedures have not more then 256 contexts.
> This can not be changed as version number in blr?
New BLR version (e.g. introduced in v3.0.1) will
Hi,
sadly to hear about v3.
But good to see that this is in progress :)
Thanks for the info.
PS. why this is not compatibile? I can think about procedures and triggers but
alredy existing triggers and procedures have not more then 256 contexts.
This can not be changed as version number in blr?
03.06.2016 09:04, liviuslivius wrote:
>
> is something done in the subject? Or some info about plans :)
> I tested current FB3 snapshot but still context limit :(
> "Dynamic SQL Error. Too many Contexts of Relation/Procedure/Views. Maximum
> allowed is 256.".
It won't be done in v3.x, this change
Hi,
is something done in the subject? Or some info about plans :)
I tested current FB3 snapshot but still context limit :(
"Dynamic SQL Error. Too many Contexts of Relation/Procedure/Views. Maximum
allowed is 256.".
regards,
Karol Bieniaszewski
W dniu 2016-03-24 17:24:38 użytkownik Adriano do
24.03.2016 14:52, liviuslivius wrote:
>
> this is because Array DML(in Delphi) use execute block with parameters
> and all parameters/variables are counted as contexts
No, they don't.
Dmitry
--
Transform Data into Oppo
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 7:52 AM, liviuslivius
wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure I get you here. How number of columns does relate to number
> > of contexts?
> >
>
> this is because Array DML(in Delphi) use execute block with parameters
> and all parameters/variables are counted as contexts
>
> PS. after
On 24/03/2016 13:01, Jim Starkey wrote:
> On 3/24/2016 10:50 AM, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
>>>Creating a new BLR version number doesn't make sense since
>>> it is hoped that future versions of Firebird will treat BLR as at most a
>>> legacy interface.
>>>
>> So you suggest Java .class
>>No, they don't.
>>Dmitry
Then i must look into Delphi code why this is important
regards,
Karol Bieniaszewski
--
Transform Data into Opportunity.
Accelerate data analysis in your applications with
Intel Data Analyti
On 3/24/2016 10:50 AM, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
>>Creating a new BLR version number doesn't make sense since
>> it is hoped that future versions of Firebird will treat BLR as at most a
>> legacy interface.
>>
> So you suggest Java .class go away? Compile source code dynamically and r
On 24/03/2016 11:41, Jim Starkey wrote:
> On 3/24/2016 9:24 AM, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
>> On 08/03/2016 10:02, Dmitry Yemanov wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> The good thing is that the code internals are more or less ready to work
>>> with context/stream number of any size, thanks to Claudio's
On 3/24/2016 9:24 AM, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
> On 08/03/2016 10:02, Dmitry Yemanov wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> The good thing is that the code internals are more or less ready to work
>> with context/stream number of any size, thanks to Claudio's refactoring.
>> So the issue is mostly about B
On 24/03/2016 10:53, Dmitry Yemanov wrote:
> 24.03.2016 16:24, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
>> If we use the new version only when the object actually uses more than
>> 255 contexts, it's an object that cannot be really migrated backward.
> It's doable, just with minor tweaks - BLR version t
24.03.2016 16:24, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
>
> If we use the new version only when the object actually uses more than
> 255 contexts, it's an object that cannot be really migrated backward.
It's doable, just with minor tweaks - BLR version tag should be adjusted
in-place after the whol
On 08/03/2016 10:02, Dmitry Yemanov wrote:
> All,
>
> The good thing is that the code internals are more or less ready to work
> with context/stream number of any size, thanks to Claudio's refactoring.
> So the issue is mostly about BLR.
>
> I see two possible solutions:
>
> 1) Bump BLR version,
Hi,
> Implemented *but* stuck due to lack of comments ;-)
if no one commented then i suppose you should choose - in your opinion the best
choise and apply patch :)
I can test this fix.
> Are you prepared to lose the ability to migrate back if something goes
> wrong?
We go only forward ;-)
>
24.03.2016 00:25, liviusliv...@poczta.onet.pl wrote:
>
> is this somehow implemented or stuck under not finished discussion?
Implemented *but* stuck due to lack of comments ;-)
> We are waiting for removing this limit :
> Fingers crossed :)
Are you prepared to lose the ability to migrate bac
>>All,
>>
>>Can anyone think of any better idea? I have the former solution
>>implemented, but maybe we could do something more clever?
>>Dmitry
Hi Dmitry,
is this somehow implemented or stuck under not finished discussion?
We are waiting for removing this limit :
Fingers
I"d use it as an excuse to dump BLR, or at least freeze and deprecate
it. It serves no useful purpose and as you note, is an impediment to
progress. It deserves to join slide rules, Beta Max, and four function
calculators as footnotes in history books.
On 3/8/2016 8:02 AM, Dmitry Yemanov wro
18 matches
Mail list logo
