On 17/01/2017 09:28, Alex Peshkoff wrote: > On 01/16/17 20:57, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote: >> On 16/01/2017 15:40, Alex Peshkoff wrote: >>> On 01/15/17 21:00, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote: >>> I like the suggestion in general but some details worth thinking more. >> Sure. It's yet more an general idea than a proposal. >> >> What I like about it, it's much simple in relation to what we have now >> while fixing the problems. >> >> Another gray area is how to support AFTER DDL triggers, who are supposed >> to see changes in RDB$ tables. > Make all transaction work with virtual metadata? > > List of problems my idea solves does not mention allow to use the being-changed structures in the same transaction as that is completely incompatible with my idea.
My idea is about to allow user to change metadata from: - valid state (initial) -> invalid state (uncommitted) -> valid state (committed) So DML uses the initial state. IMO, a reasonable restriction. But currently with the problem of DDL triggers. If any other solution allows "valid state (initial) -> invalid state (uncommitted) -> valid state (committed)" more DML changes in the same objects, it's ok for me. Personally, I think the concepts does not match. If a solution does not allow "valid state (initial) -> invalid state (uncommitted) -> valid state (committed)", then IMO it's a big wrong solution. Adriano ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
