Feature CORE-6482 - System table with keywords.#310
Conversation
| // Relation 54 (RDB$KEYWORDS) | ||
| RELATION(nam_keywords, rel_keywords, ODS_13_0, rel_virtual) | ||
| FIELD(f_keyword_name, nam_keyword_name, fld_keyword_name, 0, ODS_13_0) | ||
| FIELD(f_keyword_reserved, nam_keyword_reserved, fld_keyword_reserved, 0, ODS_13_0) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure about the column names: RDB$KEYWORD_NAME, RDB$KEYWORD_RESERVED.
As usual, we are repetitive and maybe not well spelled in case of "KEYWORD RESERVED". I did like RDB$CONFIG columns where every column is prefixed with RDB$CONFIG_
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't have any strong preference about that, as we always had RDB$RELATION_NAME inside RDB$RELATIONS and so on ;-) With just two fields in RDB$KEYWORDS I don't see it as a problem.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's not clear if you mean you prefer the prefix maintained in both columns or something different.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry for confusion, I'm OK with prefix in both columns.
|
✅ Build firebird 1.0.2533 completed (commit 86621ff4ca by @asfernandes) |
| // Relation 54 (RDB$KEYWORDS) | ||
| RELATION(nam_keywords, rel_keywords, ODS_13_0, rel_virtual) | ||
| FIELD(f_keyword_name, nam_keyword_name, fld_keyword_name, 0, ODS_13_0) | ||
| FIELD(f_keyword_reserved, nam_keyword_reserved, fld_keyword_reserved, 0, ODS_13_0) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't have any strong preference about that, as we always had RDB$RELATION_NAME inside RDB$RELATIONS and so on ;-) With just two fields in RDB$KEYWORDS I don't see it as a problem.
|
|
||
| //// FIXME: ODS version | ||
| // Relation 54 (RDB$KEYWORDS) | ||
| RELATION(nam_keywords, rel_keywords, ODS_13_0, rel_virtual) |
dyemanov
left a comment
dyemanov
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This PR can be merged. Maybe the "squash and merge" option should be preferred to avoid unnecessary garbage in the commit log.
4 participants
No description provided.