Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ALIAS NAME LENGTH LIMITATION [CORE4339] #4661

Closed
firebird-automations opened this issue Feb 14, 2014 · 10 comments
Closed

ALIAS NAME LENGTH LIMITATION [CORE4339] #4661

firebird-automations opened this issue Feb 14, 2014 · 10 comments

Comments

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator

Submitted by: Tim Kelly (m00bh000)

Is related to CORE749
Is duplicated by CORE5282
Is duplicated by CORE5389

Just tried porting my database to Firebird 3. I ran into a problem with alias lengths. This length was not enforced in Firebird 2.5 (perhaps it was a bug that it was allowed) , anyhow now they are restricted:

Is this by enforcement by design?

Either way it could represent a serious porting issue. Best solution: Support CORE749... long overdue ;)

Firebird 3.0:

SELECT * FROM RDB$DATABASE A123456789012345678901234567890;
Dynamic SQL Error
-SQL error code = -104
-Name longer than database column size

Firebird 2.5:
SELECT * FROM RDB$DATABASE A123456789012345678901234567890;

$DESCRIPTION RDB$RELATION_ID RDB$SECURITY_CLASS
RDB$CHARACTER_SET_NAME

============ =============== ==============================================
============================ ==============================================

  <null\>            4538 <null\>
                                       NONE

====== Test Details ======

See test core_2350.fbt (no more troubles with this ticket issue, so it can be closed).

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Commented by: @dyemanov

Others may disagree regarding this "problem", see e.g. CORE2350.

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Commented by: Tim Kelly (m00bh000)

Thanks Dmitry.

I agree this "bug" is actually a fix - nevertheless it represents a portability issue. I suggest at the least it should make it into the upgrade readme and be marked as closed, Core-2350 could be closed too.

Consideration should be made to have a setting to revert to old behaviour to aid people who want to upgrade and are fully aware of the danger, but perhaps are not in a position to work around (eg maybe they use middleware and don't have access to sourcecode to make their own work around). It would be a shame to lock people out of upgrading.

I have 'fixed' my middleware by just right truncating alias names when autogenerating aliases.

Can I ask the reason supporting longer dbnames is not being done in fb 3. Is it a too complex problem or does the community think it's just not warranted?

Thanks,

Tim

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Commented by: @dyemanov

Quite complex and incompatible with old API (fbclient).

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: Sean Leyne (seanleyne)

Link: This issue is related to CORE749 [ CORE749 ]

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Commented by: Sean Leyne (seanleyne)

The v3.0 functionality is correct within the scope of the current schema object name length restrictions.

Increasing the name lengths is already noted as a tracker issue/request (core-749).

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: Sean Leyne (seanleyne)

status: Open [ 1 ] => Resolved [ 5 ]

resolution: Won't Fix [ 2 ]

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @pcisar

status: Resolved [ 5 ] => Closed [ 6 ]

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @dyemanov

Link: This issue is duplicated by CORE5282 [ CORE5282 ]

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @pavel-zotov

status: Closed [ 6 ] => Closed [ 6 ]

QA Status: Covered by another test(s)

Test Details: See test core_2350.fbt (no more troubles with this ticket issue, so it can be closed).

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @dyemanov

Link: This issue is duplicated by CORE5389 [ CORE5389 ]

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant