Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: JDBC Driver Database Meta Data - FK_NAME

From: Dave Cramer <Dave(at)micro-automation(dot)net>
To: Kris Jurka <jurka(at)ejurka(dot)com>
Cc: Barry Lind <barry(at)xythos(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: JDBC Driver Database Meta Data - FK_NAME
Date: 2002-09-11 09:47:50
Message-ID: 1031737671.1955.63.camel@inspiron.cramers (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches

Give me the schema patches all at once, and I will apply them all at
once, otherwise we get out of sync with the current code.

and many thanks!

On Wed, 2002-09-11 at 03:19, Kris Jurka wrote:
> Barry Lind wrote:
> > 
> > Patch partially applied.
> > 
> > I didn't apply the changes to that
> > changes the FK_NAME being returned.  The existing code is very explicit
> > that it is trying to return something unique for foreign key name and
> > the new code doesn't necessarily do that.
> > 
> > Dave,
> > 
> > Do you see any reason why this shouldn't be changed as this patch does?
> >   I am uncomfortable applying this without your review.
> > 
> > thanks,
> > --Barry
> With the changes to constraint handling in 7.3 this is not an issue
> because constraints are required to be unique per table.  In <= 7.2 a
> unique name would be helpful.  I suppose it depends on what the user
> plans on doing with the FK_NAME retrieved.  If they are simply showing
> it uniqueness is good.  If they plan on doing ALTER TABLE [FKTABLE_NAME]
> DROP CONSTRAINT [FK_NAME] then they need the real constraint name.  I
> have no strong opinion on the subject because at the moment I am doing
> neither.
> On an unrelated note I have some other questions about the JDBC driver
> in general...
> What server versions does the JDBC driver target?  Currently it can run
> the junit tests successfully on only 7.2 and 7.3.  Is it desired to have
> these pass (by if(connection.haveMinimumServerVersion("x.y"))
> statements) on 7.1, 7.0, 6.5, ...?  Even if the tests don't successfully
> run against these servers which servers are officially supported?  Is
> there a minimum set of functionality that should be supported on all
> versions?
> I'm doing some more work on making DatabaseMetaData queries schema
> aware.  Would you prefer patches in a one function at a time format or
> an all at once approach?
> Kris Jurka

In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Lee KindnessDate: 2002-09-11 13:25:01
Subject: fmgr.h: PG_NARGS() for number of arguments passed
Previous:From: Kris JurkaDate: 2002-09-11 07:19:25
Subject: Re: JDBC Driver Database Meta Data - FK_NAME

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group