>I see nothing tricky in your CRUDdy procedures. I would think porting
>the sql-generator would be pretty straight forward. "Except for the
>names and a few other changes, the story's the same one.": read the
>system catalogues and generate your procs-cum-functions. Your jdbc
>interactions should turn out largely unchanged if the names of the
>routines are directly transferable.
>
>Has this approach failed? Or have I mis-understood?
The SQLgenerator software was written as a Windows program for MS SQLserver
only and my company purchased the software. I was trying to find if there
is some similar utility for Postgresql that would read the table
structures, write the CRUD / DML functions, and then add the functions to
the database. That way all I would have to do is customize the functions
after they were written.
The data I am porting is from very old software, pre 1995 DOS format in
xbase tables and flat files. We are writing small scripts in whatever works
to push it into postgresql. There is no Java layer.
I have found an example of what a postgresql function would look like that
does an insert. Until today I had not been able to find insert function
examples. This site has a create / update function:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2102613/postgresql-insert-that-depends-on-data-in-another-table-best-practice
This site has a script that says it will CRUD generate functions but I just
found it today and haven't tried it yet, it is tested for postgresql
versions 8.1.9 and 7.4.18 and seems to be what I was looking for.
http://myleshenderson.com/index.php/2007/11/16/postgresql-insert-function-generator
The introduction to this script reads:
"PostgreSQL Insert Function Generator. I like the plpgsql procedural
language for PostgreSQL more than it is appropriate to like a procedural
language. I find the reward:effort ratio to be quite high. Since one can do
so many cool things with it, why waste time writing boring insert functions
for tables? Here’s my plpgsql function which generates the create function
statements for tables in a database."
I don't see a reference to this site in the maillist archives and wonder if
anyone has used it or has found something similar posted for 9.1?
Thanks, Margaret"This e-mail message and any attachment(s) are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
containcompany proprietary, privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please
contactthe sender by reply e-mail, advise them of the error and destroy this message and its attachments as well as any
copies.The review, use or distribution of this message or its content by anyone other than the intended recipient or
seniormanagement of the company is strictly prohibited."
