Thread: Re: [HACKERS] pgaccess - where to store the own data
> -----Original Message----- > From: Iavor Raytchev [mailto:iavor.raytchev@verysmall.org] > Sent: 30 August 2002 16:44 > To: pgsql-hackers; pgsql-interfaces > Subject: [HACKERS] pgaccess - where to store the own data > > > Hello everybody, > > There is an open question we need broad opinion on. > > Currently pgaccess stores its own data in the database it > works with. Some people do not like that. To store it > elsewhere invokes a number of issues such as: > > - where is this somewhere > - converting form all versions to the new > - etc. > > What do people think about this. Is it so bad that the own > data is stored in the database pgaccess works with? I had the same trouble with pgAdmin, especially with pgAdmin I which had a whole host of objects server-side. I also found that people didn't like it, but where else do you store the data? pgAdmin II no longer uses such tables, but to get over the problem as best I could, I added a cleanup option to pgAdmin I that removed all server side objects in one go. Regards, Dave.
> > What do people think about this. Is it so bad that the own > > data is stored in the database pgaccess works with? > > pgAdmin II no longer uses such tables, but to get over the problem as > best I could, I added a cleanup option to pgAdmin I that removed all > server side objects in one go. What does pgAdmin II do instead? Or, how did you solve the problem? Also, just to put my two cents in, I and others I have worked with don't like admin tools mucking up the databases we're working on. So, I think it's a good idea to find some solution. 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.