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?
