Replies: 3 comments 3 replies
-
I think this is more something to discuss on firebird-devel. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
1 reply
-
What I agree with is that we need more generic solution than only for charsets/collations. Modifying Mark's example:
returns empty result set. On my mind we should make generic solution - do we try to avoid such behavior or not. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
2 replies
-
Should I file a bug that if user does |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Mark is right, it was offtopic in #8605 but I'm sure that the problem is more general than just character set and collations. RDB$DATABASES is already under discussion and I'm sure that other system tables will follow.
Is there any reason why RDB$RELATIONS had to be modified to include schemas at all? Have you ever decided it to become a view for backward compatibility only, over a brand new set of system tables? In this case old system tables can reflect only objects in single (current or PUBLIC) schema and every old tool will work just fine.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions