You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
If you try to change the size of a VARCHAR domain being used in [composite] Primary Keys, Firebird complains like:
This operation is not defined for system tables.
unsuccessful metadata update.
MODIFY RDB$FIELDS failed.
action cancelled by trigger (1) to preserve data integrity.
Cannot update index segment used by an Integrity Constraint.
Vlad told me that indexes doesn't mind about var(char) field size, so this rule could be "relaxed".
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
As far as I can see, the domain doesn't have to be used by PK - I do get similar error when trying to alert one which isn't used by any PK / FK (using 2.0.3).
Dependence problem exists for any field domains that is used by (for ex. by proc).
The error is:
"This operation is not defined for system tables.
unsuccessful metadata update.
Column ... from table ... is referenced in ..."
Thinks that if altering domain is proper action, than no need to lookup some additional boundaries like field usage.
If user do this, than he know what to do, and the shooting leg will be on his conscience.
Whether or no, now user skip the proper ALTER command and use the "update rdb$fields" that is quite dangerous but meet no dependencies problems.
Serg, I think you mention a different (although related) issue here. Index is not a regular (usually PSQL) dependency and is likely to imply a separate set of rules.
Submitted by: @WarmBooter
Votes: 3
If you try to change the size of a VARCHAR domain being used in [composite] Primary Keys, Firebird complains like:
This operation is not defined for system tables.
unsuccessful metadata update.
MODIFY RDB$FIELDS failed.
action cancelled by trigger (1) to preserve data integrity.
Cannot update index segment used by an Integrity Constraint.
Vlad told me that indexes doesn't mind about var(char) field size, so this rule could be "relaxed".
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: