Thread: Re: [HACKERS] pgaccess - where to store the own data
Matthew T. OConnor wrote: > One thought is to use a completely separate database, but also allow it > to be stored in the current database if the user wants it too. This > also solves the case of a user that can't create a new database for his > admin tool (permissions etc...). Also, it might be cleaner now that we > have schemea support to create one pgadmin, or pgaccess schemea in the > database, that handled all the others. > As someone else mentioned (I think), even using a separate schema is not always an acceptable option. If you are using a "packaged" application (whether commercial or open source), you usually don't want *any* changes to the vendor provided database. Particularly with commercial software, that can mean loss of, or problems with, technical support, or problems when upgrading. Joe
> As someone else mentioned (I think), even using a separate schema is not > always an acceptable option. If you are using a "packaged" application > (whether commercial or open source), you usually don't want *any* > changes to the vendor provided database. Particularly with commercial > software, that can mean loss of, or problems with, technical support, or > problems when upgrading. Agreed, but if the information is to be stored using the database server at all, then I think this option should be left in since some users probably don't mind the clutter, and will not be allowed to create a new database or schemea.
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 02:43:38PM -0400, Matthew T. OConnor wrote: > > As someone else mentioned (I think), even using a separate schema is not > > always an acceptable option. If you are using a "packaged" application > > (whether commercial or open source), you usually don't want *any* > > changes to the vendor provided database. Particularly with commercial > > software, that can mean loss of, or problems with, technical support, or > > problems when upgrading. > > Agreed, but if the information is to be stored using the database server at > all, then I think this option should be left in since some users probably > don't mind the clutter, and will not be allowed to create a new database or > schemea. I'm a bit late on this discussion, but I, for one, have liked having some of the pgaccess info stored with the database. That way, no matter what machine I connect to the DB from, I get the same set of functions, queries, and schema-documents. BTW, has the 'schema' tab been renamed yet? With actual schema in 7.3, that'll get confusing. Ross
Ross wrote: > I'm a bit late on this discussion, but I, for one, have liked > having > some of the pgaccess info stored with the database. That way, > no matter > what machine I connect to the DB from, I get the same set of > functions, > queries, and schema-documents. Very much true. A wiki page has been started on that topic - feel free to contribute to the methods and their pros and cons, as well to the proposed final approach. http://www.pgaccess.org/index.php?page=WhereToStoreThePgAccessOwnData > BTW, has the 'schema' tab been renamed yet? With actual schema > in 7.3, > that'll get confusing. Not renamed yet.
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 06:24:10PM +0200, Iavor Raytchev wrote: > A wiki page has been started on that topic - feel free to contribute to > the methods and their pros and cons, as well to the proposed final > approach. > http://www.pgaccess.org/index.php?page=WhereToStoreThePgAccessOwnData I'll take a look. > > BTW, has the 'schema' tab been renamed yet? With actual schema > > in 7.3, that'll get confusing. > Not renamed yet. In which case, we need to come up with a different name. How does "diagrams" strike you all? Ross (I removed HACKERS from the CC)
Diagrams makes sense to me... On Wed, 2002-09-04 at 09:45, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote: > On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 06:24:10PM +0200, Iavor Raytchev wrote: > > > A wiki page has been started on that topic - feel free to contribute to > > the methods and their pros and cons, as well to the proposed final > > approach. > > > http://www.pgaccess.org/index.php?page=WhereToStoreThePgAccessOwnData > > I'll take a look. > > > > BTW, has the 'schema' tab been renamed yet? With actual schema > > > in 7.3, that'll get confusing. > > > Not renamed yet. > > In which case, we need to come up with a different name. How does > "diagrams" strike you all? > > Ross (I removed HACKERS from the CC) > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly -- Brett Schwarz brett_schwarz AT yahoo.com
Ross and Iavor: > > > BTW, has the 'schema' tab been renamed yet? With actual > > > schema > > > in 7.3, that'll get confusing. > > > Not renamed yet. > > In which case, we need to come up with a different name. How > does > "diagrams" strike you all? Hm... In MS Access it is called 'Relations' which sounds kind of correct. Basically now we just display them, so 'Diagrams' could be correct for us for now. In MS Access the relations are actually built there. That's what I would like us to do - use the current 'Schema' tab (they are not tabs anymore in the new interface) and make it able to build relations (represented in the code with referential integrity). Then 'Diagrams' would not fit, but 'Relations'. Also 'References'. Iavor
But in relational theory, doesn't relations refer to what we commonly refer to as tables? I think this would be confusing as well. However, I do agree that it would be cool to have it automatically generated... On Wed, 2002-09-04 at 10:00, Iavor Raytchev wrote: > Ross and Iavor: > > > > > BTW, has the 'schema' tab been renamed yet? With actual > > > > schema > > > > in 7.3, that'll get confusing. > > > > > Not renamed yet. > > > > In which case, we need to come up with a different name. How > > does > > "diagrams" strike you all? > > Hm... In MS Access it is called 'Relations' which sounds kind of > correct. Basically now we just display them, so 'Diagrams' could be > correct for us for now. In MS Access the relations are actually built > there. That's what I would like us to do - use the current 'Schema' tab > (they are not tabs anymore in the new interface) and make it able to > build relations (represented in the code with referential integrity). > Then 'Diagrams' would not fit, but 'Relations'. Also 'References'. > > Iavor -- Brett Schwarz brett_schwarz AT yahoo.com
Brett: > But in relational theory, doesn't relations refer to what we commonly > refer to as tables? I think this would be confusing as well. > However, I > do agree that it would be cool to have it automatically generated... I am not an expert in relational theory... If it is so - then that's bad name. But if the native speakers and relational theory experts (joke :) agree that what we have now as 'Schema' can be called 'Diagrams' and used for creating different documentations, etc., and what is left is the referential integrity (looking at it and visual management) than we can call the new thing just 'Visual referential integrity manager' :))) if not too long...
On Wednesday 04 September 2002 17:07, Brett Schwarz wrote: > But in relational theory, doesn't relations refer to what we commonly > refer to as tables? I think this would be confusing as well. However, I > do agree that it would be cool to have it automatically generated... In MS Access they can be a combination of Queries and Tables. Not knowing any better, if it a relationship of any kind, then call it a relation. At least us unwashed from the MS Access world would get a better handle on it. ( if that is what they really are ) John > > On Wed, 2002-09-04 at 10:00, Iavor Raytchev wrote: > > Ross and Iavor: > > > > > BTW, has the 'schema' tab been renamed yet? With actual > > > > > schema > > > > > in 7.3, that'll get confusing. > > > > > > > > Not renamed yet. > > > > > > In which case, we need to come up with a different name. How > > > does > > > "diagrams" strike you all? > > > > Hm... In MS Access it is called 'Relations' which sounds kind of > > correct. Basically now we just display them, so 'Diagrams' could be > > correct for us for now. In MS Access the relations are actually built > > there. That's what I would like us to do - use the current 'Schema' tab > > (they are not tabs anymore in the new interface) and make it able to > > build relations (represented in the code with referential integrity). > > Then 'Diagrams' would not fit, but 'Relations'. Also 'References'. > > > > Iavor -- John Turner JCI Inc. http://home.ntelos.net/~JLT "Just because you do not know the answer does not mean that someone else does" Stephen J. Gould, {rip}
>> Hm... In MS Access it is called 'Relations' which sounds kind of >> correct. Actually, the window is called "Relationships", not "Relations".... -- terry