Subject | Re: [IB-Architect] Database names |
---|---|
Author | Bill Karwin |
Post date | 2000-05-05T02:22:38Z |
> Actually there are plenty of functions already natively included inMost of these are provided as UDFs and currently require declaration in each
> Interbase.
database that uses the functions. Truly native functions that are
recognized by the SQL parser and do not require external libraries are
another discussion...
> I believe the sugestion Bill is making is not to remove the capacity to dothem
> this on a database by database basis but to ADD the capacity to define
> on a system wide level. Almost like inheritance.That is what I'm suggesting, but I wouldn't call it inheritance. It's
merely like having an "INI" file that declares certain functions by default
each time you create a new database.
Currently, one could use "input functions.sql" in the isql tool right after
you create a database. Perhaps the idea that I have is better handled in
the isql tool than in the server. It could really be thought of as a
database design issue, not a runtime issue.
I'll build this capability into my "pisql.pl" and see how people like it.
:-)
> In fact I would like to seeset
> a capacity to group these function definitions into functional units and
> then assign them to the system or a particular database depending on its
> purpose. For example a financial reporting database might be allocated a
> of functions for handling quarters etc.With the "input functions.sql" method, you could for instance group subsets
of function declarations each into a separate file, e.g.
"financefunctions.sql". This works with today's version of InterBase just
fine.
Bill Karwin