Iavor and terry:
> >> Correct. Was lazy to look it up. Does this change something?
> Not really, I was just following up on the discussion about the
> incorrect use of the term Relations by MS Access. I don't think that
> Relationships is a bad tab label - except that it's a bit
> long for the
> current size tabs :).
> Access's Relationships are all placed on one canvas, regardless of
> whether or not there are several independent diagrams
> present. If this
> model is to be used by pgaccess, it would make just as much sense to
> put 'Relationships' into the Database menu instead of a tab,
> since the
> New, Open, and Design actions would not mean anything.
> the-$0.02-of-an-old-Access-developer-wishing-the-best-to-pgaccess ...
There are no tabs anymore. The new interface is... you should download
and see it.
Also - there was the idea to rename 'Schema' to 'Diagrams' as there can
be many such - snapshots of different parts of the database. Useful when
one has to write a documentation (I did this once).
And then - a 'visual referential integrity manager' (a future feature)
that will allow referential integrity to be viewed/created/edited in a
So - for the native speakers - there is an option the 'Visual
referential integrity manager' to be called 'Relationships'.
Any native comments?
In response to
pgsql-interfaces by date
|Next:||From: James||Date: 2002-09-05 05:17:00|
|Subject: Setting up pgaccess on Win2k|
|Previous:||From: terry||Date: 2002-09-04 19:25:42|
|Subject: Re: the current 'schema' tab - renaming ideas|