Re: Database designer

On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 15:48 +0000, Dave Page wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Luis Ochoa <ziul1979(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Autonaming can be turn off, but the idea of adding this feature arises from
> > good database design practices and the idea of having an initial default
> > name for it, if the user don't want to use, just overwrite it and it
> > automatically turn off.
> > Just to clarify, What's the suggestion for it?
>
> Remove the default, to match the behaviour elsewhere in the
> application. You don't need to provide a default to require the user
> to name the table - that can be required anyway (and would be, if the
> user wants a usable script to be generated). Plus the current default
> really doesn't meet good practices with PostgreSQL, as the default
> name is mixed case.
>

I removed it yesterday evening.

> >>> 7) Why do we have to specify a short table name?
> >>>
> >>
> >> You're not required.
> >
> >> OK, let me rephrase. Why am I asked for one? What effect does it have
> >> on the generated schema?
> >
> >
> > Is for the use of autonaming feature. If that feature is turned off it
> > shouldn't be need any more.
>
> Auto naming of what?
>

FK, and index IIRC.

> > You can doit by two ways: minimize button and dragging table border (size
> > icon) from the button. It sounds like a bug, normal behavior is just like a
> > window with maximize/minimize buttons, I'm not sure about your problem, can
> > you give me the steps to reproduce it, probably is a bug.
>
> I can't find any way to resize using the mouse. I did get it to
> minimise again, when I finally managed to click the _ icon instead of
> +, but cannot get it to maximise again - all that happens is the
> button icon changes.
>

Yeah, it needs to be fixed with a better UI.

> > I really don't believe this feature should be removed, it should fixed I
> > agree, but is a good designed feature, very flexible, able to do it things
> > that other databases designer (even comercial ones) aren't able to do it.
>
> Agreed - but just having has lots of cool features doesn't mean it's
> ready to ship. There are a number of issues that I've identified, and
> probably more I haven't found yet, and we won't ship a feature in
> pgAdmin until we believe it's working to an appropriate standard -
> that means bug free (with some allowance for low-impact issues that
> cannot easily be resolved, and don't materially affect the user), with
> a UI that's usable on all the supported platforms and is consistent
> with the rest of the UX throughout the app, and is written in a way
> that is maintainable moving forwards (the latter, not being an issue
> in this case from what I've seen).
>

On such a huge patch, it's really hard to work without commiting some
parts of it. So I decided to commit each milestone of the project. I
agree with you that it lacks lots of tweaking, but it's not that bad.

--
Guillaume
http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info
http://www.dalibo.com