Re: PgAccess directory structure

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross J. Reedstrom [mailto:reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu]
> Sent: 11 May 2002 20:03
> To: pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] PgAccess directory structure
>
>
> <operational note: I hope all the pgaccess people have
> subscribed to INTERFACES by now. If any non-pgaccess people
> start to complain that we've taken over the group, just
> holler: we can get our own list, then>
>
> On Sat, May 11, 2002 at 05:50:52PM +0100, Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure how far along the plans for pgaccess are.
> However,I like
> > to propose some changes to the directory structure. I would
> be looking
> > to have these changes implemented in the main postgres tree
> if the new
> > repository isn't operational at the time, as long as that
> tree is used
> > to initialise the new repository.
> >
>
> Note that the core pgsql developers seem willing to let us
> actually apply patches to the REL_7_2 branch, so it may be
> possible to do all this in place.
>
> > Proposal:
> <proposal on how to make pgaccess version agnostic, and
> backward compatible>
>
> I agree with the general idea of this proposal: the
> implementation sounds o.k., but I haven't been that deep in
> the code recently. Having the latest and greatest pgaccess
> handle various backends sounds like a great idea.

Much as this sounds good, I find this to be the single biggest headache
with development of pgAdmin. pgAccess has an advantage over pgAdmin in
that it is shipped with PostgreSQL - my advice to you would be to take
advantage of this & go version-specific and spend time making great
software rather than figuring out (for example) how to support 7.3 &
<7.3 versions of pg_aggregate.

Hmm, advice to the competition. I think I need a beer now :-)

Regards, Dave.