[pgadmin-hackers] pgAdmin 4 commit: Improvement in the security tab for each of the nodes

Improvement in the security tab for each of the nodes. * Hide the security tab for the objects under the catalog schema. Patched by Surinder Kumar, vastly improved by me. * Make the securtiy label across all the nodes, using the same backbone model across the nodes, and make changes in the ba

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] [pgAdmin4][Patch]: Node issues under catalogs

Thanks - committed with a lot more improvements. Along with changes for the security labels, now - using the common backbone model for it for each of the node, instead of defining them in each of the node modules. -- Thanks & Regards, Ashesh Vashi EnterpriseDB INDIA: Enterprise PostgreSQL Compan

[pgadmin-hackers] pgAdmin 4 commit: Fixes #1123 - Options other than 'Create' are not ava

Fixes #1123 - Options other than 'Create' are not available in the procedure node. This patch also includes other fixes related 'procedure' node as below: * Generate correct statement for dropping procedure. * Fetch the missing schema name for the EXEC script. * Removed the 'DROP CASCADE' menu opt

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] PATCH: To fix issue in procedure node (pgAdmin4)

Thanks - committed! -- Thanks & Regards, Ashesh Vashi EnterpriseDB INDIA: Enterprise PostgreSQL Company *http://www.linkedin.com/in/asheshvashi* On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Murtuza Zabuawala < murtuza.zabuaw...@enterp

[pgadmin-hackers] pgAdmin 4 commit: Load nodes under the schema at database level.

Load nodes under the schema at database level. The following node module script will be loaded, when first database node object is added in the browser tree. * Domains * Foreign tables * FTS Configuration * FTS Dictionary, and * Functions Icons for these modules needs to be shown in the dependent

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] [pgAdmin4][Patch]: Load nodes under schema at database level

Thanks - committed! -- Thanks & Regards, Ashesh Vashi EnterpriseDB INDIA: Enterprise PostgreSQL Company *http://www.linkedin.com/in/asheshvashi* On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Surinder Kumar < surinder.ku...@enterprisedb

[pgadmin-hackers] pgAdmin 4 commit: Fixes #1231, #1237

Fixes #1231, #1237 * 'Of type' can't be used with 'Like'. * 'Of type' usage conflicts with adding columns. Branch -- master Details --- http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=pgadmin4.git;a=commitdiff;h=f4cb7d8f9c5502888d0ba39bfaec227b74aac24c Author: Murtuza Zabuawala Modified Files -

[pgadmin-hackers] pgAdmin 4 commit: Fixes #1147 - 65536 is valid port for PostgreSQL.

Fixes #1147 - 65536 is valid port for PostgreSQL. Branch -- master Details --- http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=pgadmin4.git;a=commitdiff;h=70cca42d61da929cdac2b378ec355c9a670770c7 Author: Murtuza Zabuawala Modified Files -- web/pgadmin/browser/server_groups/servers/templa

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] PATCH: To fix an issue with port validation (pgAdmin4)

Thanks - committed! -- Thanks & Regards, Ashesh Vashi EnterpriseDB INDIA: Enterprise PostgreSQL Company *http://www.linkedin.com/in/asheshvashi* On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 7:05 PM, Murtuza Zabuawala < murtuza.zabuaw...@enterp

[pgadmin-hackers] [pgAdmin4][Patch]: Refresh CONCURRENTLY is not supported on materialized view for pg-9.3 server

Hi PFA patch for the *RM#1228*: "Refresh CONCURRENTLY is not supported on materialized view for pg-9.3 server" Adds a check to hide "Refresh CONCURRENTLY" option on material view if server is pg-9.3 Please review the patch. Thanks, Surinder Kumar refresh_view_concurrent_RM#1228.patch Descript

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] [pgAdmin4][Patch]: RM#1243 - Columns on the Query Tool should be sizeable

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Surinder Kumar < surinder.ku...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > Hi > > Please find updated patch with following changes: > >1. Replaced the outdated code for *Backgrid Sizeable Columns plugin *with >https://github.com/FortesSolutions/backgrid-sizeable-columns li

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] JSON serialization in pgAdmin 4

On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Lele Gaifax wrote: > Ashesh Vashi writes: > > > On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Lele Gaifax > wrote: > >> I'd like to know if there is already a plan to properly handle > >> date/timestamp > >> fields, that currently fail with an error because simplejson by de