[fpc-pascal] Re: RE : RE : Re: SQLDB GetSchemaInfoSQL for indexes etc?
reinierolislagers at gmail.com
Thu Apr 19 15:51:09 CEST 2012
On 19-4-2012 15:37, michael.vancanneyt at wisa.be wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2012, Reinier Olislagers wrote:
>> On 19-4-2012 15:02, Ludo Brands wrote:
>>>> Ludo here I do not understand what do you want to say. may be, that my
>>> english is not so good ;-)
>>>> Can you explain please what is your proposal regarding to stIndexes ?
>>> stIndexes is currently not implemented: keep it that way (or drop it)
>>> add and implement stTableConstraints, stReferentialConstraints,
>>> stConstraintColumnUsage and stConstraintTableUsage. And why not some
>>> missing information_schema views like 'views' or 'schemata'.
>>> Delphi compatibility? Delphi adodb defines and implements the following:
>>> type TSchemaInfo = (siAsserts, siCatalogs, siCharacterSets,
>>> siColumns, siCheckConstraints, siConstraintColumnUsage,
>>> siConstraintTableUsage, siKeyColumnUsage, siReferentialConstraints,
>>> siTableConstraints, siColumnsDomainUsage, siIndexes, siColumnPrivileges,
>>> siTablePrivileges, siUsagePrivileges, siProcedures, siSchemata,
>>> siSQLLanguages, siStatistics, siTables, siTranslations, siProviderTypes,
>>> siViews, siViewColumnUsage, siViewTableUsage, siProcedureParameters,
>>> siForeignKeys, siPrimaryKeys, siProcedureColumns);
>> Fine with Ludo's proposal; dropping stIndexes... and adding new ISO
>> compliant stuff if needed.
>> Delphi has at least adodb and dbexpress with various implementations....
>> so not much of a standard.
>> Keeping to the information_schema standard seems like a good idea -
>> especially because it will make it easier to easily get useful info from
>> an ISO SQL 92+ compliant database..
>> Anybody against this? Michael? Joost?
> Not against.
>> Has anybody used this functionality in sqldb at all?
> No. For a simple reason:
> I implemented all this information in fpdatadict; I think it belongs
> more there, and definitely not in the basic data API.
I know you put stuff there... ATM there is some overlap between the two.
I don't mind just leaving sqldb alone and just working with fpdatadict &
the fpdd* database specific code... but it's a good idea if we agree
where/if we need to split things.
>> I am trying to see if having a list of indexes in the database
>> connectors would help with the data dictionary
> It would help, yes.
... does confuse me a bit though.
Could you tell me your thoughts on the way you see the split (if any)?
More information about the fpc-pascal