Dave, I'm not sure if you missed my message or have not had time to look at the patch. Just in case, here's the link to my earlier message [1]
Elias [1] http://tinyurl.com/8nklz On 8/23/05, Dave Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Aug 22, 2005, at 8:48 AM, Lance Lavandowska wrote: > > On 8/21/05, Elias Torres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> - DB2 has a (seems-to-me) hard limit on identifier names for > >> constraints and indexes to 18 chars. I had to shorten them. > >> - It's illegal for column definitions to contain simply a "null" after > >> the coltype (it's the default). > > I knew there were still database with crazy column name limitations. > > I guess the proposed "roller_" prefix is too much. > > Elias: do you have a patch that goes against the 2.0 version of > createdb.sql? > > - Dave > > > > > > It seems to me that is the default for most DBs, so this change > > shouldn't be an issue (removing the 'allows null' declarations). > > > >> - It's a column definition is of type varchar, the default value > >> cannot be 0. > > > > Example please. > > > >> - If I use db2 -tvf createdb.sql, it seems to fail when comments are > >> embedded in a create table definition. > > > > Ugh. I suppose we could move comments to be before the table > > definition. > > > >> In addition to that I had to add extra keywords to the foreign key > >> constraints, so an extra property at the end of the contraints would > > > > We could add a generic transform (keyword substitution) at the end of > > each foreign key declaration, but that seems rather hackish. > > > > Anyone else have comments? > > > > Lance > > > >
