Re: Schema bug

From: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, "Andreas Pflug" <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, "pgadmin-hackers" <pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Schema bug
Date: 2005-12-08 15:39:41
Message-ID: E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E4E7E7C9@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgadmin-hackers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgadmin-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgadmin-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of
> Florian G. Pflug
> Sent: 08 December 2005 15:33
> To: Andreas Pflug; pgadmin-hackers
> Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Schema bug
>
> Andreas Pflug wrote:
> > Guillaume LELARGE wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I found a weird bug today. If you rename the public
> schema, it becomes
> >> unavailable. Here is a patch to fix it. It modifies the
> query to use
> >> the oid instead of the schema's name. Works great on
> Linux, should'nt
> >> be a problem on win32.
> >
> > Actually, to me renaming the public schema appears as the
> primary bug...
> > There are many ways to corrupt pgAdmin's behaviour, and you
> found one of
> > 'em. Renaming public is so irregular, I doubt it's worth
> changing the
> > behaviour.
>
> This argument scares me... I believe a GUI-Tool shouldn't impose any
> additional restrictions to what you can do with your database -
> otherwise GUI-Users become second-class citzicens when
> compared to those
> who use the commandline/psql. Why exactly does pgadmin depend on
> the existance of the public schema?

The first thing that springs to mind is that we can only tell that it is
*not* a system schema from it's name. The normal test (oid <
LAST_SYSTEM_OID) doesn't work because it's created during (in
template1/template0 at least).

/D

Responses

Browse pgadmin-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andreas Pflug 2005-12-08 15:46:49 Re: Schema bug
Previous Message Florian G. Pflug 2005-12-08 15:33:16 Re: Schema bug