Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Dave Cramer writes:
>
> > The method in question is
> > ResultSetMetaDate.getTableName(int column)
> > and while were at it
> > ResultSetMetaData.getSchemaName(int column)
> > and FWIW, the return value if not applicable is ""
>
> Not applicable sounds fine to me. It's
Dave Cramer writes:
> The method in question is
> ResultSetMetaDate.getTableName(int column)
> and while were at it
> ResultSetMetaData.getSchemaName(int column)
> and FWIW, the return value if not applicable is ""
Not applicable sounds fine to me. It's like taking a file descriptor and
asking w
someone requests it.
Reggie
> -Original Message-
> From: Neil Conway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 11:47 PM
> To: Reggie Burnett
> Cc: 'Tom Lane'; 'Dave Cramer'; 'PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [
On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 10:44, Reggie Burnett wrote:
> Well, certainly the driver could parse the sql and extract what it
> thinks is the table name. It just seems quite foreign to me to have a
> database engine go through the motions of determining column location
> and have ready access to all the
The method in question is
ResultSetMetaDate.getTableName(int column)
and while were at it
ResultSetMetaData.getSchemaName(int column)
and FWIW, the return value if not applicable is ""
Dave
On Tue, 2003-01-28 at 17:21, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Dave Cramer
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dave Cramer says it is needed for the jdbc spec, somehow.
Does the JDBC spec really require the database to provide functionality
that's not in the SQL spec? I kinda doubt that.
regards, tom lane
---(end
Original Message-
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 4:01 PM
> To: Peter Eisentraut
> Cc: Tom Lane; Reggie Burnett; 'Dave Cramer'; 'PostgreSQL Hackers
Mailing
> List'
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Request for qualifi
aut [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 3:59 PM
> To: Bruce Momjian
> Cc: Tom Lane; Reggie Burnett; 'Dave Cramer'; 'PostgreSQL Hackers
Mailing
> List'
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Request for qualified column names
>
> Bruce Momjian writes
Bruce Momjian writes:
> My idea on this after chat with Dave was to add a GUC option that puts
> the schema.table.column name as the default column label, rather than
> just the column name.
Can someone explain why this is needed at all? There is a reason why the
SQL standard does not provide fo
Dave Cramer says it is needed for the jdbc spec, somehow. It seems kind
of odd so I don't want to make too complex an implementation.
---
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > My idea on this after chat with
On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 15:50, Larry Rosenman wrote:
> --On Monday, January 27, 2003 15:49:06 -0500 Bruce Momjian
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > My idea on this after chat with Dave was to add a GUC option that puts
> > the schema.table.column name as the default column label, rather than
>
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > My idea on this after chat with Dave was to add a GUC option that puts
> > the schema.table.column name as the default column label, rather than
> > just the column name.
>
> And will you quotify things so that names containing dots,
Larry Rosenman wrote:
>
>
> --On Monday, January 27, 2003 15:49:06 -0500 Bruce Momjian
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > My idea on this after chat with Dave was to add a GUC option that puts
> > the schema.table.column name as the default column label, rather than
> > just the column name
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My idea on this after chat with Dave was to add a GUC option that puts
> the schema.table.column name as the default column label, rather than
> just the column name.
And will you quotify things so that names containing dots, spaces, etc
are unambiguous?
--On Monday, January 27, 2003 15:49:06 -0500 Bruce Momjian
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My idea on this after chat with Dave was to add a GUC option that puts
the schema.table.column name as the default column label, rather than
just the column name. (That's so easy, I think even I could do it.
My idea on this after chat with Dave was to add a GUC option that puts
the schema.table.column name as the default column label, rather than
just the column name. (That's so easy, I think even I could do it.) If
they over-ride it with AS, or if it is an aggregate or FROM subquery, we
just return
1 AM
> To: Reggie Burnett
> Cc: 'Dave Cramer'; 'PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Request for qualified column names
>
> "Reggie Burnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > When talking about expressions,views, or any other
"Reggie Burnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When talking about expressions,views, or any other construct that could
> combine values from multiple tables I think it is reasonable to provide
> null as the table name. Any one or any process requesting the table
> name has to understand that not a
gt; Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Request for qualified column names
>
> Dave Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So for a "select a, b, a+b as sum from c" returns c.a, c.b,
?table?.sum
>
> This might be something to consider as par
Dave Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So for a "select a, b, a+b as sum from c" returns c.a, c.b, ?table?.sum
This might be something to consider as part of the planned protocol
overhaul. We cannot simply change the returned column names --- at
least not without breaking a lot of application
--
Dave Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cramer Consulting
This is useful for some O/R tools. The JDBC spec has a getTableName method for each
column in a result set.
One issue which will come up is what to do with aggregate, and computed values. For
now, we could return null
So for a "select a, b
21 matches
Mail list logo
