From: | Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
Cc: | Miha Radej <miha(dot)radej(at)siix(dot)com>, pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Registry |
Date: | 2005-11-11 16:50:38 |
Message-ID: | 4374CBDE.4060303@pse-consulting.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgadmin-hackers |
Dave Page wrote:
>
>>
>> 1.5 *does* delete the values, but wx will read a non-existent value
>> as empty and recreate it.
>
>
> Because the count value still read 12 or whatever I guess.
Yup.
> Do we still need the count in the new scheme? Can't we just iterate
> through all the subkeys?
We'd have to delete entries if servers are removed from the tree. I can
remember incidents where count was corrupted (for whatever reason) and
no servers where displayed, but the registry was still there so it was
sufficient to increase the count.
>
>> Any suggestions? We could copy them over, if newer don't exist, and
>> leave the old ones. But this would leave quite some (pre-1.5)
>> garbage.
>
>
> I'm not convinced it was actually worth the change - it's not like it
> was something that the user needed to hack normally, or would cause
> performance issues.
If you add a schema restriction you'll understand why I did this.
Alternatively, we could try to convince Tom to extend pg_database and
pg_schema :-)
Regards,
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Page | 2005-11-11 16:55:47 | Re: Registry |
Previous Message | Dave Page | 2005-11-11 16:32:34 | Re: Registry |