From: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Jasmin Dizdarevic <jasmin(dot)dizdarevic(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Email notification pgAgent |
Date: | 2010-12-31 09:26:22 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTinoVc7=RFaUwaNUjShwbbaLXnmy5MojEcPH0k5i@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgadmin-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Jasmin Dizdarevic
<jasmin(dot)dizdarevic(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I'm not so keen on that - it could require some funky code to ensure
> that the user uses sequential (or at least, non-duplicate) numbers
> across all steps and would be a pain to upgrade to. Plus, there is
> precedence for using alpha ordering - that's how triggers work
>> I don't think that we must ensure that no duplicate values are used. With
>> changing the "order by jstname,jstid" clause to "order by
>> jstorder,jstname,jstid" we would have a fall back on alpha ordering.
>> Steps with "jstorder" = null would be executed last - so there is no need to
>> upgrade. To give the user feedback about ordering in pgadmin, the steps
>> could be ordered the same way in tree view and steps tab in job properties
>> dialog. We could also add the jstorder-column to the list view.
What do others think? I'm still not convinced this is necessary - and
it certainly will become inconsistent with triggers.
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-12-31 09:52:14 | Re: Trac tickets |
Previous Message | Dave Page | 2010-12-31 01:39:31 | Re: Source reindenting |