Re: SCHEMA_PROCS

[Rodrigo Moya Piernavieja <rmoya tsai es>]

Vivien Malerba wrote:

> Hi!
>
> I'm about to change the SCHEMA_PROCS because what I proposed was not good:
> * I think the client needs to know who ithe owner of the procedure is

Isn't it already in the set of returned fields for the EXTRA_INFO constraint?

>
> * as getting the SQL definition from the SQL server is time consuming (at least
> for the postgres server), I propose that another SCHEMA entry be created (like
> GDCN_SCHEMA_PROC_DEF which would return the name and SQL definition for one or
> more procedures).

That's why there is the EXTRA_INFO constraint. You should return the SQL stuff
only if EXTRA_INFO is specified. But I think having a new GDCN_SCHEMA for each SQL
definition will lead to a huge amount of schemas, which is not what we want. What
you propose could be done with new constraints for the GDCN_SCHEMA_PROCS schema,
although I'd vote for having the SQL stuff in the EXTRA_INFO constraint.

>
> * I propose that we use GDCN_SCHEMA_PROC_PARAMS to get the in parameters of the
> procedure (the out parameter being given in GDCN_SCHEMA_PROCS).
>
> What do you think of this?
>

Wouldn't it be better to have the GDCN_SCHEMA_PROC_PARAMS return both? with a
field saying which direction the parameter is. Also, there may be cases where a
parameter is in/out, so this unique schema will return all of them.

>
> BTW, I don't see any use for GDCN_SCHEMA_PROC_COLUMNS, so if nobody want to use
> it, why not remove it!
>

We'll start removing all the unneeded constraints as soon as we are sure they are
not needed.

Vivien! sorry for not helping you much on all this schema stuff, but I'd prefer to
have Stephan back to discuss all this, so that we don't define constraints
impossible to fetch in the oracle server, for example.

Cheers