Re: Patch: New field in frmMain statusbar - Mailing list pgadmin-hackers
From | Dave Page |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Patch: New field in frmMain statusbar |
Date | |
Msg-id | CA+OCxowaBvS3szDk4Jc0F=nSkDG52JWguFpSc1BgPZ9xgbzeXA@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Patch: New field in frmMain statusbar (Adam Scott <adam.c.scott@gmail.com>) |
Responses |
Re: Patch: New field in frmMain statusbar
(Adam Scott <adam.c.scott@gmail.com>)
|
List | pgadmin-hackers |
I think so - I realise it's not the display name (which would be ideal), but it is a condensed name that fully describes the connection. On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Adam Scott <adam.c.scott@gmail.com> wrote: > If it displayed what's displayed in the Query editor would that be better? > > Thank you, > Adam > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Adam Scott <adam.c.scott@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> If you have a development host and a production host, the database names >> will be the same. I think the value of the having the new field goes away >> if you exclude the hostname. You won't know what host the object you are >> selecting belongs to. That could be the difference between modifying an >> object in development and production. >> >> It seems to me that what you could say about the display name is what >> could be said about the connection's display name in the tree control since >> this is what is displayed (plus the database name). >> >> What the patch displays answers the questions, "What connection am I on?" >> "What database am I on?" >> >> I guess I can work on adding another patch that allows you to customize >> what is displayed using frmOptions...? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> >>> wrote: >>> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> > The part that changed is just the one that added db1 and db2, right? >>> >> >>> >> It's the server display name *and* the database name, so to give a >>> >> (redacted) example from my machine, I would have: >>> >> >>> >> aws-ap-southeast-1b.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.com (aws-ap-southeast-1b. >>> >> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.com:5432):postgres >>> >> >>> >> Which as you can see is quite long. >>> > >>> > >>> > I thought the point of display names was to have them nice and short :) >>> > I've >>> > certainly never used displaynames that are that long. >>> >>> I generally use the full hostnames (as I have machines in multiple >>> domains) - and in the places that you currently see them, that length >>> is actually fine. >>> >>> > Yes, I totally see with names like that it becomes annoying, and >>> > certainly >>> > not easy to parse. Perhaps what we really shoul dhave is just >>> > displayname + >>> > databasename, and exclude the actual hostname? >>> >>> That would be an improvement, certainly. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dave Page >>> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com >>> Twitter: @pgsnake >>> >>> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com >>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company >> >> > -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
pgadmin-hackers by date: