If it displayed what's displayed in the Query editor would that be better? Thank you, Adam
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Adam Scott <[email protected]> wrote: > If you have a development host and a production host, the database names > will be the same. I think the value of the having the new field goes away > if you exclude the hostname. You won't know what host the object you are > selecting belongs to. That could be the difference between modifying an > object in development and production. > > It seems to me that what you could say about the display name is what > could be said about the connection's display name in the tree control since > this is what is displayed (plus the database name). > > What the patch displays answers the questions, "What connection am I on?" > "What database am I on?" > > I guess I can work on adding another patch that allows you to customize > what is displayed using frmOptions...? > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Dave Page <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Magnus Hagander <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Dave Page <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Magnus Hagander <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> > The part that changed is just the one that added db1 and db2, right? >> >> >> >> It's the server display name *and* the database name, so to give a >> >> (redacted) example from my machine, I would have: >> >> >> >> aws-ap-southeast-1b.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.com (aws-ap-southeast-1b. >> >> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.com:5432):postgres >> >> >> >> Which as you can see is quite long. >> > >> > >> > I thought the point of display names was to have them nice and short :) >> I've >> > certainly never used displaynames that are that long. >> >> I generally use the full hostnames (as I have machines in multiple >> domains) - and in the places that you currently see them, that length >> is actually fine. >> >> > Yes, I totally see with names like that it becomes annoying, and >> certainly >> > not easy to parse. Perhaps what we really shoul dhave is just >> displayname + >> > databasename, and exclude the actual hostname? >> >> That would be an improvement, certainly. >> >> >> -- >> Dave Page >> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com >> Twitter: @pgsnake >> >> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com >> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company >> > >
