Re: Schemas and all
- From: Vivien Malerba <malerba linuxbox com>
- To: gnome-db-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Schemas and all
- Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 20:49:12 +0100
On mar, 01 fév 2000, Rodrigo Moya Piernavieja wrote:
> SQL is the SQL command needed for creating the table (or object)
> > ---SCHEMA_COLUMNS:
> > * OBJECT_NAME: specify the table or view's name. if not set, columns for ALL the tables and view will
> > be shown.
> No, if not set, this is invalid, you must ALWAYS supply a table (or view) name. Or not?
You are right. I just thought we could not require the user to give a special
> > * COLUMN_NAME: specify which column, and if not specified, all the columns will be shown.
> > * EXTRA_INFO: if not set, shows (name, SQL server type, size (FIXME: which unit?), precision
> > (FIXME: what is it?), nullable (TRUE if can be null)) and if set (name, SQL server type, size, precision,
> > nullable, is it a key, default value, comments).
> precision is the number of digits in the decimal part (for numeric columns only)
> I would remove the EXTRA_INFO from this one, so that this schema is just a 'DESC tabename' command. Specially since there are no "big" queries to do (that is, as with the
> tables' SQL column, which might be difficult to retrieve for some servers).
So, the EXTRA_INFO is regarded as an unwanted constraint, and the restul is
always (name, SQL server type, size (FIXME: which unit?), precision, nullable
(TRUE if can be null), TRUE if is a key, default value, comments)?
> > Some things to introduce:
> > * a way to test for functionnalities. For example, under Postgres I do not know how to get information for
> > other DB than the one to which the connection is opened (and thus the OBJECT_CATALOG is useless for
> > the postgres provider). There should be a way for the user of knowing this. For
> > example a function which would return TRUE or FALSE if a particular
> > functionality is in the DBMS. Other examples: can a table inherit another one,
> > can a user create his own data types,...
> We should maybe add all this "parameters" as schemas as well, so that for example, we can have a schema GDA_Connection_SCHEMA_SUPPORTED which will return all the supported
> schemas for a provider. What do you think?
As the returned answer for one question (like is the table inheritance
supported?) is a boolean, why not create a function symmetric to
gda_connection_open_schema() and working the same way, but returning TRUE/FALSE?
like for example:
if (gda_connection_features(cnc, GDA_CONNECTION_BOOL_SCHEMA_TABLE_INHERIT))...
The advantage is, I think, easier way of interrogating the DB on one particular
What do you think?
> > * another SCHEMA: for the sequences. Postgres has a kind of object which acts
> > as a counter and with it you can be sure to have only ONE value at a time. It
> > surely exists under other DBMS.
> Yes, that's one of the missing schemas. Oracle has this as well.
> > * a way for the user to perform some specific tasks such as setting a default
> > value, setting some comments for any object,...
> I can't think of a way to do this. Only the SQL Builder (on which Bruno Mairlot is going to hack) could provide a way of doing this.
I'll have a look at it...
> > Some open questions:
> > * how could we cope with specific data types? Postgres is quite full of data
> > types (points, circles, IP adresses, arrays of all sorts,...) and any user can
> > define some new ones. One solution is to not care from gnome-db, but then
> > gnome-db must give all the clues as to how treat those data types (e.g. how to
> > create one, delete one, use one,...).
> Or maybe extend the set of GDA_Type's?
I'll think about it... BTW do any other DBMS have the "arrays" postgres has?
> > * has anyone thought about storing some information on the DB into the server.
> > Let me explain: why for example not allow one user for one given DSN, to store
> > some SELECT queries. The advantage is that this user could then "execute" those
> > queries from another program (for example a gnumeric script to have the results
> > of the query into a sheet). This is just an idea (and I know there are a lot of
> > things to be done properly before), and give me your thoughs ont it.
> It's a good idea, specially since we must integrate gnome-db in the gnome-office, so this could be a way to allow retrieval of data from unrelated apps (as gnumeric) without
> having to "really" connect to the underlying database. But this needs a very deep thought I think.
BTW, I have started to modify gASQL to use gnome-db.
] [Thread Prev