On Jun 5, 2007, at 4:05 PM, Rick Morrison wrote:
> I don't think so, not directly. > > Short-term, here's a couple of things to try: > > -- you may be able to create views in the local database that > reference the warehouse tables, and access these views as if they > were local tables. > > -- you may be able to hack up something by using the schema support > in SA, where the "schema" would be a string consisting of > "database.owner". If SA ignores the dot in the string and passes it > through to the DB-API, and if the DB-API also ignores the string, > it might work. (^H^H^H -- I see you tried this already) > > Longer term, this is going to need support on both the DB-API and > the SA level. AFAIK, only MSSQL has this kind of feature, and > adding it will probably risk breaking a lot of other things. So, if > it is going to need a lot of changes to SA to make it happen, it > probably won't. hey rick - we do have "schema" and "owner" arguments on "Table" - does this work at the DBAPI level if MS-SQL dialect sends through a string like "select * from schema.owner.table" ? or are we blocked because DBAPI doesnt allow it ? theoretically i think MS-SQL should be able to override the creation of a table string in all statements. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
