On 19-4-2012 15:37, michael.vancann...@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) >>> 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? > > 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. This: >> I am trying to see if having a list of indexes in the database >> connectors would help with the data dictionary >> (packages\fcl-db\src\datadict)... > > It would help, yes. > > Michael. ... does confuse me a bit though. Could you tell me your thoughts on the way you see the split (if any)? Thanks, Reinier _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
