1

Topic: Restriction in 64 on a procedure body

Server WI-V6.3.6.27020 Firebird 2.5
11.2
Page size - 4096
The client 2.5.6.27020
Well and IBExpert
Well here today came across this restriction
And all anything if at once the server sent in the correct direction
However he told only
Invalid token.
Dynamic SQL Error.
SQL error code =-104.
Unexpected end of command - line 1401, column 17.
That entered me a little into confusion (quitted a stupor only after  all procedure and received that on brains)
And as always a question
It at me only so and if only at me that I do that not so
Whether well and if not only to me that it is possible to correct it
. Once I managed to achieve the distinct message, on limit excess in 64
But repeatedly I and could not receive it, and at all I do not know how
I could receive it

2

Re: Restriction in 64 on a procedure body

Whether

m7m wrote:

well and if not only to me that it is possible to correct it

It is possible, probably. But whether there is a sense if 2.5 just about it ceases to be supported...

3

Re: Restriction in 64 on a procedure body

dimitr wrote:

it is passed...
It is possible, probably. But whether there is a sense if 2.5 just about it ceases to be supported...

Yes can and there is no sense
Truth at me to jump off from 2.5 perspectives practically is not present sad
However I am already notified"also to me of it enough

4

Re: Restriction in 64 on a procedure body

m7m wrote:

Truth at me to jump off from 2.5 perspectives practically is not present sad

In what a hitch?

5

Re: Restriction in 64 on a procedure body

dimitr wrote:

it is passed...
In what a hitch?

Yes here FB what side
We have customers on attending which else sit on 1.5 and on 2.1
And the principle "works do not touch" at them it is developed much more strongly than at me
[spoiler especially my judgement] to Support the code that worked both on 2.5 and on 1.5 not so
Though sometimes and unpleasantly. Well and to pass on 3-ku and to write the code which
Should work and since  sense special I do not see
Moreover it is possible also the client (means the program) it will be necessary
.
And it already above my forces.
To me for 6th ten passed, it is necessary to me
[/spoiler]

6

Re: Restriction in 64 on a procedure body

dimitr wrote:

it is possible, probably. But whether there is a sense if 2.5 just about it ceases to be supported...

Your message reminded about March "deadline" . smile

7

Re: Restriction in 64 on a procedure body

m7m;
All for the time being. The client rearranges Windows, and  will not be launched, then the same fate comprehends and 2.5. And "the Encyclopedia of crutches" becomes the reference book.

8

Re: Restriction in 64 on a procedure body

KreatorXXI wrote:

m7m;
All for the time being. The client rearranges Windows, and  will not be launched, then the same fate comprehends and 2.5. And "the Encyclopedia of crutches" becomes the reference book.

Well not one Windows...
And  yes when  it will not be launched then their life and to force out with

9

Re: Restriction in 64 on a procedure body

m7m;
Too faced such restriction. The correct decision was to rewrite procedure and to break it into smaller on the size .
There was at me still any manager for FB, the exact title is not remembered, conformable with a word . And so, it is a little of it " on a low level" and it began to save these "the big procedures" without problems, truth  from it was, but saving happened. , not the most correct way and I know it about it.

10

Re: Restriction in 64 on a procedure body

WWW wrote:

m7m;
Too faced such restriction. The correct decision was to rewrite procedure and to break it into smaller on the size .
There was at me still any manager for FB, the exact title is not remembered, conformable with a word . And so, it is a little of it " on a low level" and it began to save these "the big procedures" without problems, truth  from it was, but saving happened. , not the most correct way and I know it about it.

At me a problem not with restriction, in with the error text
Well and about correctness of the decision that  yes the most reasonable was
To rewrite procedure, however the presents  go some other way
And I simply reduced the text  in procedure
(Well before passage to one-two-symbolical variables I hope I will reach)

11

Re: Restriction in 64 on a procedure body

m7m;
I am sorry for  the text
(Fingers something sometimes push on two keys at once)

12

Re: Restriction in 64 on a procedure body

rdb_dev wrote:

Your message reminded about March "deadline" . smile

You already tested an alpha and enumerated the found bugs in ?

13

Re: Restriction in 64 on a procedure body

wrote:

There was at me still any manager for FB, the exact title is not remembered, conformable with a word .

Good you a title invented for FlameRobin. smile

14

Re: Restriction in 64 on a procedure body

m7m wrote:

it is passed...
Well not one Windows...
And  yes when  it will not be launched then their life and to force out with

And where they leave, if the developer does not have desire (we tell so) on  to pass?

15

Re: Restriction in 64 on a procedure body

To pass with 1.5 on 2.5 where it is more difficult, than with 2.5 on 3.0

16

Re: Restriction in 64 on a procedure body

KreatorXXI wrote:

it is passed...
And where they leave, if the developer does not have desire (we tell so) on  to pass?

Variants a heap
From on
To deliver

17

Re: Restriction in 64 on a procedure body

Denis wrote:

to pass with 1.5 on 2.5 where it is more difficult, than with 2.5 on 3.0

Yes.
Here the most difficult,  to find and check up all UPDATE in which in associated values fields earlier changed by the same operator figure. Simply silently the logic changes that the most terrible.

18

Re: Restriction in 64 on a procedure body

dimitr wrote:

it is passed...
In what a hitch?

We too on 2.5 will be to last sad.

19

Re: Restriction in 64 on a procedure body

pastor wrote:

we too on 2.5 will be to last sad.

And you why?

20

Re: Restriction in 64 on a procedure body

dimitr wrote:

you already tested an alpha and enumerated the found bugs in ?

I and did not find where at it the replication plug-in is stuck. To go in ?.

21

Re: Restriction in 64 on a procedure body

Denis wrote:

to pass with 1.5 on 2.5 where it is more difficult, than with 2.5 on 3.0

Well so it only the first time, then all on
. I am done not excited at all with process of passage
I am am excited with support of "old" versions of the server in one code
For to translate all to one version for comprehensible time (well we tell for a month-two)
Simply it is not real owing to the reasons not dependent on me
And judging by practice it can be expanded for years
Well it can be so persevering and it is necessary to deliver simply
All before the fact, however for us the customer always (well almost always) the rights
What it  would not advance

22

Re: Restriction in 64 on a procedure body

Dimitry Sibiryakov;
And unless replication ?

23

Re: Restriction in 64 on a procedure body

m7m;
In 3.0 as regards SQL 2 incompatibility are equal: it is locked blendings explicit and implicit join (and that not all cases) and mandatory instructions  for expressions which are used in cursors c AS CURSOR.
I at myself neither the first, nor did not practise the second therefore translated like clockwork.
YuRock;
If you in the projects were put on a bug (not under the standard it) that

24

Re: Restriction in 64 on a procedure body

Denis wrote:

and unless replication ?

Probably yes, time Dmitry insists on testing  features.

25

Re: Restriction in 64 on a procedure body

Denis wrote:

m7m;
.....
I at myself neither the first, nor did not practise the second therefore translated like clockwork.

Similarly
Here put at all in it, and in new possibilities of language which are to be used
However from for compatibility supports it is impossible.
Well here the most simple and harmless example of distinctions between 1.5 and 2.5
"is distinct from"
In  with it run
Also it is necessary in the old manner
I any more do not speak about more essential, type select from select, CTE
And in triple so also window functions
And they too should be used for it will be easier
However not destiny
. As to immediate 3
That at the beginning of its appearance basis translated on 3-ku
Tried operation of our client,
Problems neither with transfer nor with the client did not find out
(Well tried so for a moment task basic functions: input, calculation, pair of reports)
And on it calmed down