Is the last patch okay? If there's something more required or anything please let me know.
Thank you, Adam On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Adam Scott <[email protected]> wrote: > Being consistent with the frmQuery probably helps the user as well. > Here's the patch to display the connection name as it is displayed in the > frmQuery. > > Thank you, > Adam > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Dave Page <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I think so - I realise it's not the display name (which would be >> ideal), but it is a condensed name that fully describes the >> connection. >> >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Adam Scott <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > 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 >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Dave Page >> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com >> Twitter: @pgsnake >> >> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com >> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company >> > >
