Re: Registry

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

In response to

Browse pgadmin-hackers by date

  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