Re: Registry

From: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: "Andreas Pflug" <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>
Cc: "Miha Radej" <miha(dot)radej(at)siix(dot)com>, <pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Registry
Date: 2005-11-11 16:32:34
Message-ID: E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E4E7DF91@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgadmin-hackers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de]
> Sent: 11 November 2005 16:29
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Miha Radej; pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Registry
>
> > Whatever killed mine off didn't delete them, it just set all the
> > settings to empty strings so I had lots of servers like:
> (:0) as Miha
> > did :-(
>
> 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. Do we still
need the count in the new scheme? Can't we just iterate through all the
subkeys?

>
> 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.

Regards, Dave.

Responses

Browse pgadmin-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andreas Pflug 2005-11-11 16:50:38 Re: Registry
Previous Message Andreas Pflug 2005-11-11 16:28:42 Registry