Hello Adriano,
> Can you say, with less words and more examples, what's wrong and why?
>
> I mean, please run the current code and dump some commands, results and
> explanations here.
With the current 2.5.2 snapshot:
SQL> set term #;
SQL> execute block
CON> returns (uuid char(16) character set o
Paul,
Can you say, with less words and more examples, what's wrong and why?
I mean, please run the current code and dump some commands, results and
explanations here.
I didn't ignored Mark's saying "It also explicitly says that bytes
should be in network byte order (aka big-endian)" and my code
Extend the error reported for index/constraint violations to include the
offending key value
Key: CORE-3881
URL: http://tracker.firebirdsql.org/browse/CORE-3881
People, this thread (from Dec 2011) was never properly concluded.
> > On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:14:20 -0200, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes
> > wrote:
> >> There is no UUID "binary representation" in the RFC. There it's just a
> >> formated string.
> > Yes there is a binary representation defined in
Derivative tables on the basis of values of constants
-
Key: CORE-3880
URL: http://tracker.firebirdsql.org/browse/CORE-3880
Project: Firebird Core
Issue Type: New Feature
Report
On 27-6-2012 18:28, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
> 27.06.2012 17:30, Leyne, Sean wrote:
>> Actually, I just opened the "TIMESTAMP Keyword" case with Atlassian
>
> IMHO, you did a little mistake in this ticket - you mentioned Firebird.
> If you simply
> had written "what kind of idiot must be DB d
On 06/27/12 21:04, marius adrian popa wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Leyne, Sean
> wrote:
>
>>
Actually, I just opened the "TIMESTAMP Keyword" case with Atlassian
>>>IMHO, you did a little mistake in this ticket - you mentioned
>> Firebird. If you
>>> simply had written "what
