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
Increase maximum length of object names to 63 characters [CORE749] #1124
Comments
Modified by: @pcisarissuetype: New Feature [ 2 ] => Improvement [ 4 ] assignee: Dmitry Yemanov [ dimitr ] SF_ID: 807895 => |
Modified by: @pcisarassignee: Dmitry Yemanov [ dimitr ] => |
Modified by: @dyemanovassignee: Dmitry Yemanov [ dimitr ] |
Modified by: @pcisarWorkflow: jira [ 10773 ] => Firebird [ 15144 ] |
Commented by: Fidel Viegas (araujofh) This would be a really nice feature, as it sometimes complicates when we try to make an application compatible with various RDBMS. This is the only restriction I find when I try to port applications from other RDBMS. It forces one to rename object names to adjust to this limitation, and this sometimes breaks code that was already working. Specially when you are dealing with frameworks like Ruby on Rails. I do understand that if it wasn't yet implemented is because somehow it is a difficult task, but the truth is that it sometimes forces us to do extra work when porting from other RDMBS. Regards, Fidel. |
Commented by: Tim Kelly (m00bh000) Any chance of this making it into version 3. It's such as frustrating limitation. Cheers, Tim |
Commented by: Valdir Marcos (valdir_marcos) I could not find this request neither on Release Notes - Firebird Core - Version 3.0 Alpha 1 - HTML format (http://tracker.firebirdsql.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=10331&styleName=Html&projectId=10000) nor on Roadmap last updated in November 2012 (http://www.firebirdsql.org/en/roadmap/). It is really useful on object-oriented programming (OOP) and on porting from other RDMBS to Firebird. Can we hope this improvement to be scheduled for Firebird 3? |
Commented by: @dyemanov No, it's not planned for v3.0. |
Modified by: @dyemanovassignee: Dmitry Yemanov [ dimitr ] => |
Commented by: Sean Palmer (seanpalmer65) Any progress on this please? |
Modified by: @dyemanovFix Version: 4.0 Alpha 1 [ 10731 ] assignee: Adriano dos Santos Fernandes [ asfernandes ] |
Commented by: Todd Manchester (todd710) I appreciate all that you do! I too was hoping this would make it into v3.0. But understand there needs to be limits. Just my 2 cents. |
Commented by: @livius2 If we are talking about compatibility |
Modified by: @asfernandessummary: Object names of at least 64bytes => Increase maximum length of object names to 64 characters |
Modified by: @asfernandessummary: Increase maximum length of object names to 64 characters => Increase maximum length of object names to 63 characters |
Modified by: @pavel-zotovstatus: Resolved [ 5 ] => Resolved [ 5 ] 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). |
Modified by: @pavel-zotovstatus: Resolved [ 5 ] => Closed [ 6 ] |
Modified by: @mrotteveel |
Submitted by: @pcisar
Is duplicated by CORE1948
Is duplicated by CORE2375
Is duplicated by CORE1262
Is duplicated by CORE3659
Relate to CORE4339
Is duplicated by CORE5031
Block progress on JDBC467
Relate to CORE5866
Votes: 49
SFID: 807895#
Submitted By: pcisar
Like other RDBMS's we should be supporting longer
object names.
----------------------
User: nobody
Logged In: NO
Longer identifiers are useful, but remember that Oracle
supports 30 character identifiers, so this would impact DB
portability. A switch would be nice.
Commits: 91a2a3c fc95191 e69a823
====== Test Details ======
See test core_2350.fbt (no more troubles with this ticket issue, so it can be closed).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: