Thread: pgAdmin and pg_service.conf
Hello! is there any deep technical reason why pgAdmin does not support connections via service-names corresponding to pg_service.conf, or is it just sth in the level "nobody asked for it before / we did not get around to do it" ? Harald -- GHUM GmbH Harald Armin Massa Spielberger Straße 49 70435 Stuttgart 0173/9409607 Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 734971 - persuadere. et programmare
Le 24/02/2011 21:08, Massa, Harald Armin a écrit : > [...] > is there any deep technical reason why pgAdmin does not support > connections via service-names corresponding to pg_service.conf, or is > it just sth in the level "nobody asked for it before / we did not get > around to do it" ? > The latter. I added a ticket to work on this once we'll have some time. -- Guillaume http://www.postgresql.fr http://dalibo.com
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote: > Le 24/02/2011 21:08, Massa, Harald Armin a écrit : >> [...] >> is there any deep technical reason why pgAdmin does not support >> connections via service-names corresponding to pg_service.conf, or is >> it just sth in the level "nobody asked for it before / we did not get >> around to do it" ? >> > > The latter. > > I added a ticket to work on this once we'll have some time. Why? Nobody ever asked for it before, and there are 101 other things that people have asked for that we haven't got to yet! Given the current lack of interest, I don't think we should expend the time to develop or the additional maintenance burden. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Le 24/02/2011 23:52, Dave Page a écrit : > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Guillaume Lelarge > <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote: >> Le 24/02/2011 21:08, Massa, Harald Armin a écrit : >>> [...] >>> is there any deep technical reason why pgAdmin does not support >>> connections via service-names corresponding to pg_service.conf, or is >>> it just sth in the level "nobody asked for it before / we did not get >>> around to do it" ? >>> >> >> The latter. >> >> I added a ticket to work on this once we'll have some time. > > Why? Nobody ever asked for it before, and there are 101 other things > that people have asked for that we haven't got to yet! Given the > current lack of interest, I don't think we should expend the time to > develop or the additional maintenance burden. > I don't expect to work on this any time soon, but I don't want to forget about it. This would be an interesting feature. -- Guillaume http://www.postgresql.fr http://dalibo.com
Le 25/02/2011 00:48, Guillaume Lelarge a écrit : > Le 24/02/2011 23:52, Dave Page a écrit : >> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Guillaume Lelarge >> <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote: >>> Le 24/02/2011 21:08, Massa, Harald Armin a écrit : >>>> [...] >>>> is there any deep technical reason why pgAdmin does not support >>>> connections via service-names corresponding to pg_service.conf, or is >>>> it just sth in the level "nobody asked for it before / we did not get >>>> around to do it" ? >>>> >>> >>> The latter. >>> >>> I added a ticket to work on this once we'll have some time. >> >> Why? Nobody ever asked for it before, and there are 101 other things >> that people have asked for that we haven't got to yet! Given the >> current lack of interest, I don't think we should expend the time to >> develop or the additional maintenance burden. >> > > I don't expect to work on this any time soon, but I don't want to forget > about it. This would be an interesting feature. > See attached path. Harald, if you can try it, it would be great. -- Guillaume http://www.postgresql.fr http://dalibo.com
On 24 February 2011 22:52, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: >> I added a ticket to work on this once we'll have some time. > > Why? Nobody ever asked for it before, and there are 101 other things > that people have asked for that we haven't got to yet! Given the > current lack of interest, I don't think we should expend the time to > develop or the additional maintenance burden. I think that you'd be more inclined to commit this if you knew how Harald intended to use it. Specifically: http://2ndquadrant.blogspot.com/2011/03/switchover-for-common-people.html . I have taken a look at Guillaume's patch, and it seems reasonable and straightforward to me. Apparent demand shouldn't be an overriding consideration when deciding whether or not a feature is to be developed. Build it and in some cases, they will come. Incidentally, why is pgConn::libpqVersion a double, rather than an integer as returned by PQserverVersion()? Seems brittle, considering that some incredibly common values cannot be exactly represented as floating point numbers, such as 0.1 . -- Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services