Reinier Olislagers  wrote / napĂ­sal(a):
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 ;-)
Small drawback will be, that for those DB that do not have INFORMATION_SCHEMA there will be need for adding many selects against system tables (or do not implement them at all ;-))

Has anybody used this functionality in sqldb at all?
No. And I do not expect that I will use it in future.

-Laco.

_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Reply via email to