You can use sqsh to connect MS-sql too, more info you can see: https://github.com/tumashu/sql-mssql




At 2016-06-16 14:04:26, "Xi Shen" <davidshen84@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Nicolas,


Please take a look at the updated patch. Changes:


- add ORG-NEWS entry
- add function declaration
- add input file template for `mssql' engine to remove the "affected rows" tail



On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 12:49 AM Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote:

Hello,

Xi Shen <davidshen84@gmail.com> writes:

> I suppose I should put the news entry to ./etc/ORG-NEWS file, but into
> which version? I created below entry, please take look and let me know
> where do you want me to put it.

I'd say

  Version 9.0 > New features > Babel

or

  Version 9.0 > Miscellaneous

> *** Improved support to Microsoft SQL Server in =ob-sql.el=
> =ob-sql.el= library removes support to the ~msosql~ engine which uses
> the deprecated =osql= command line tool, and replaces it with ~mssql~
> engine which uses the =sqlcmd= command line tool.  Use with properties
> like this:
>
> #+BEGIN_EXAMPLE
>  :engine mssql
>  :dbhost <host.com>
>  :dbuser <username>
>  :dbpassword <secret>
>  :database <database>
> #+END_EXAMPLE
>
> If you want to use the *trusted connection* feature, omit *both* the
> =dbuser= and =dbpassword= properties and add =cmdline -E= to the
> properties.
>
> If your Emacs is running in a Cygwin environment, the =ob-sql.el=
> library can pass the converted path to the =sqlcmd= tool.

It looks good.

> I checked the code and it does not quote the arguments for me. It is a safe
> manner in Windows to always quote the path. So I will keep it.

Fair enough.

> I have a question. Currently the table generated by mssql engine has the
> "affected rows" append to the end, like this.
>
>   |          memberid | username | xx   | flags |
>   |-------------------+----------+------+-------|
>   |                 1 | GPL      | Indo | NULL  |
>   |                 2 | GPL      | Indo | NULL  |
>   |                   |          |      |       |
>   | (2 rows affected) |          |      |       |
>
> I personally prefer to remove it. Do you or the org community has a
> preference about this? Maybe I should keep the behavior align with other
> engines?

I lean towards removing it, too. I doesn't give useful feedback. We can
always insert it back later if it introduces unwanted side-effects.


Thank you.


Regards,

--
Nicolas Goaziou

--



Thanks,
David S.