Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 23:47 +0900, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>> Recently added boolean options are defined as some bits in Extra Opts.
>> Is it OK to define the option as a bit in Extra Opts ?
Sorry for the late answer.
> Thanks for your feedback. I've had a look at the code for Extra Options
> (and thought a bit more about it), and I'd prefer to keep the option as
> a separate tick-box if possible.
There are already so many options and I'm not eager to increase
the options excessively. It's also pretty painful to add a check
box etc in the setup dialog. Basically I want to use bits in the
Extra Opts for boolean options herafter.
> My reason for this is that the people
> who want this feature are the people who want to get rid of extra tables
> they see over ODBC. Generally these people have already found the "Hide
> System Tables" option but can't work out how to remove the extra tables,
> so for me it makes sense to put the two options close to each other.
> Also, for support purposes, it would be much easier to explain a tick
> box over the phone rather than get them to read out the "Extra Options",
> calculate the new value and then type it back in as a hex value!
How about changing the default behavior of SQLTables to list only
SELECTable tables and add a bit to Extra Opts to list inaccessible
tables also ?
In response to
pgsql-odbc by date
|Next:||From: Hiroshi Inoue||Date: 2007-06-27 01:12:19|
|Subject: Re: Why is UseDeclareFetch so slow?|
|Previous:||From: Richard Wesley||Date: 2007-06-25 16:28:34|
|Subject: Re: Using the PostgreSQL ODBC driver for another database|