On Saturday, July 9, 2011, Guillaume Lelarge <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 13:39 +0100, Dave Page wrote: >> On Saturday, July 9, 2011, Guillaume Lelarge <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > I would prefer to only refresh the old parent node, and the new parent >> > node. But we have no way to know the new parent node. So I refresh all >> > schemas. Which will bring other performance issues for users with big >> > schemas. >> >> I wonder if we need to think about a way of passing more info down to >> the lower guts of the execution mechanism. We kinda did that already >> when we added the 2 part SQL execution, maybe now we should think >> about a more extensible technique (maybe as simple as passing a simple >> struct of stuff to deal with). >> > > Do you have an example? I'm not sure I really understand what you mean.
(I'm not looking at any code right now, so please bear that in mind...) Currently the code that executes the SQL that's generated by a dialog when you click the ok button, just does a relatively simple check to see if there's something to execute in either of the SQL boxes iirc. I'm suggesting that we might have a more complex data structure that we populate with info about "stuff to do" when the OK button is clicked - for example, a schema name to refresh, an array of SQL statements to run in separate transactions etc. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgadmin-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgadmin-hackers
