Re: fixes on gda-oracle-server (fwd) [WatchDog checked]

[Stephan Heinze <Stephan Heinze xcom de>]

---Reply to mail from Rodrigo Moya about fixes on gda-oracle-server (fwd)
[WatchDog checked]

[--snip--]
> Yes! We should define a good set of columns for each different schema to
> describe as much as possible each object but without redundant data. Right
> now, as I said, they use the ODBC model, since the ODBC server was first
> developed.
>
> For example
>
> * tables: name, owner, create_command
> * views, name, owner, create_command
> * columns: name, type (GDA_Type...), size, precision, nullable, comments
> * procedures: name, owner, create_command
> * indexes: name, owner, create_command
>
> The create_command stuff is very important for the future Import/Export
> utility, so if we can, it should be added everywhere we can.
>
> What do you think? Of course, this is a two-minute thought, so tell me what
> would you add/remove...

I would divide the schema information and the create command to different
methods.

If you want to analyse a large database (lots of objects) the
collecting of informations for an create command will become very
expensive, 'cause you have to collect the column information for every
table create command.

On the other hand I would add a _comments_ field to every entry (not just
to column entries).

Question: Should gnome-db become a administration tool for databases?
You've written about import/export, ownerships of tables and so on. In that case
we
should provide much more informations about the objects (but that seems to
become quite difficult because of the different functionality of the
RDBMS).

---End reply

kind regards

Stephan

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."
                                                        John Lennon
-------------------------------------------------------------------