Re: request link to maintained pgAdmin 3 fork on main project page - Mailing list pgadmin-support

From Dave Page
Subject Re: request link to maintained pgAdmin 3 fork on main project page
Date
Msg-id CA+OCxoz7QX5wp6j=frg77jvGQvSGjbZ2M3Jk_OMSE8+j217oHA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to request link to maintained pgAdmin 3 fork on main project page  (Darren Duncan <darren@darrenduncan.net>)
Responses Re: request link to maintained pgAdmin 3 fork on main project page  (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
Re: request link to maintained pgAdmin 3 fork on main project page  ("Mlodgenski, Jim" <jimm@openscg.com>)
List pgadmin-support
Hi

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Darren Duncan <darren@darrenduncan.net> wrote:
Dave Page or whom it concerns,

Reflecting on feedback given to this list on a number of occasions including today about how pgAdmin 3 works better for some people than pgAdmin 4 does, and that pgAdmin 3 is officially unsupported, I recommend/request the following...

On the page https://www.pgadmin.org/download/ where it says "WARNING: pgAdmin 3 is no longer supported. It is recommended that you download pgAdmin 4 instead.", I recommend editing that to append "by us" or something similar, and then add a sentence and link saying that a third party (or several if applicable) has taken it on themselves to provide long-term support for pgAdmin 3, BigSQL at least.

So for people whom pgAdmin 4 isn't meeting their needs as well as pgAdmin 3, make it more easily known that BigSQL or others are explicitly offering support for that.  You would still say that you and the official pgAdmin forum does not provide support for these forks, but that their maintainers do.  You can also explicitly say you don't endorse the forks, but are making their existence known as a community service.

I think having this pointer on this page and probably in other places will help to cool some user concerns about having to choose between a rock and a hard place, not supported versus less stable.

The problem is (and I had a brief discussion with the guys from OpenSCG about this yesterday), I don't think they are going to do any additional work. The effort required to support PG 10.0 is significant due to the changes needed following the addition of declarative partitioning. 

If that's not the case, please yelp Jim!
 

You could also mention the fact there are other Postgres clients, however just mentioning the BigSQL or similar forks, which specifically are about LTS for something you used to support, is the main point and what people coming to you would potentially want.

Does that read like a good idea to you?

I'm happy to consider mentioning ongoing support for pgAdmin 3, if that is going to be a reality with 10.0+ (currently both our version, and OpenSCGs will work with PG 9.6). It would be for a limited time though, until the Windows performance issue is resolved, along with multi-monitor support which is already committed for 1.6. Once those issues are resolved, I don't believe there are any significant blockers remaining for users; obviously there are differences, but that will always be the case (and is both expected and intentional).

I'm not going to list alternative clients though, any more than the PostgreSQL website would list alternative DBMS. It is the pgAdmin website after all - if people don't want pgAdmin, there are lists of alternate clients on www.postgresql.org and wiki.postgresql.org I believe.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

pgadmin-support by date:

Previous
From: Jaime Casanova
Date:
Subject: Re:
Next
From: "Mlodgenski, Jim"
Date:
Subject: Re: request link to maintained pgAdmin 3 fork on main project page