Re: SCHEMA_PROCS

[Vivien Malerba <malerba linuxbox com>]

On mar, 08 fév 2000, you wrote:
> Vivien Malerba wrote:
> 

> >
> > * 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.

This is the case with all the other schemas, but I wanted to avoid to compute
the SQL info if possible for the procs (under postgres, for a default setup,
there are about 930 procs!). Anyway for the moment, it is not computed, so
we'll discuss it when Stephan is back, there is no hurry.

> 
> >
> > * 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.
> 

Ok!

I hope to release one (more!) revision of the postgres tonight with all the
modifs I've done (SCHEMA_SEQUENCES, SCHEMA_TAB_PARENTS, SCHEMA_PROCS,
SCHEMA_PROC_PARAMS) and some bug fixing, then no more modif of that stuff
before we completely fix the schemas stuff. 

I also need to have a look at the gnome-db-browser, because I want to use it for
gASQL. 

Thanks!

Vivien