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) but > add and implement stTableConstraints, stReferentialConstraints, > stKeyColumnUsage, > stConstraintColumnUsage and stConstraintTableUsage. And why not some other > missing information_schema views like 'views' or 'schemata'. > > Delphi compatibility? Delphi adodb defines and implements the following: > type TSchemaInfo = (siAsserts, siCatalogs, siCharacterSets, siCollations, > 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? Has anybody used this functionality in sqldb at all? Regards, Reinier _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
