Re: pgAdmin and pg_service.conf

From: Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
Cc: Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>, "Massa, Harald Armin" <chef(at)ghum(dot)de>, pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pgAdmin and pg_service.conf
Date: 2011-04-04 15:05:31
Message-ID: BANLkTinrR6jQUNybjtLbXuqTQ+EM9YKs9Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgadmin-hackers

On 24 February 2011 22:52, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>> I added a ticket to work on this once we'll have some time.
>
> Why? Nobody ever asked for it before, and there are 101 other things
> that people have asked for that we haven't got to yet! Given the
> current lack of interest, I don't think we should expend the time to
> develop or the additional maintenance burden.

I think that you'd be more inclined to commit this if you knew how
Harald intended to use it. Specifically:
http://2ndquadrant.blogspot.com/2011/03/switchover-for-common-people.html
.

I have taken a look at Guillaume's patch, and it seems reasonable and
straightforward to me.

Apparent demand shouldn't be an overriding consideration when deciding
whether or not a feature is to be developed. Build it and in some
cases, they will come.

Incidentally, why is pgConn::libpqVersion a double, rather than an
integer as returned by PQserverVersion()? Seems brittle, considering
that some incredibly common values cannot be exactly represented as
floating point numbers, such as 0.1 .

--
Peter Geoghegan       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services

In response to

Browse pgadmin-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Guillaume Lelarge 2011-04-04 19:53:36 Re: Planning for 1.14 Beta 1
Previous Message Dave Page 2011-04-04 14:59:49 Planning for 1.14 Beta 1