From: | Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> |
---|---|
To: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
Cc: | Zach Conrad <zach(dot)conrad(at)digitecinc(dot)com>, pgadmin-support(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 1.8.4 bug DB Restriction field |
Date: | 2008-06-06 14:22:12 |
Message-ID: | 48494814.9050607@lelarge.info |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgadmin-support |
Dave Page a écrit :
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
> <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> wrote:
>> Zach Conrad a écrit :
>>> Thank you for your quick response.
>>>
>>> There are a few things this brings up:
>>>
>>> 1. The pgAdmin help file states the use of datname IN ('blah') in the DB
>>> Restriction field
>>> 2. Most people know which databases they want to connect to. Wouldn't it
>>> make
>>> more sense to use datename IN (...) rather than NOT IN?
>>>
>> OK, it seems my bugfix was wrong. And I suppose the one on schema
>> restriction is also wrong.
>>
>> My patch is more user friendly (you don't have to know the name of
>> pg_database's columns), but it allows less stuff (you can just give
>> databases' names, you won't be able to filter on columns other than
>> datname). It seems a regression to me, sorry about this.
>>
>> Dave, what do you think I should do ? remove the patch ?
>
> Just remove the NOT?
>
I can do this. But, for example, if someone was using this filter field
to get out template databases, removing the NOT won't fix this.
--
Guillaume.
http://www.postgresqlfr.org
http://dalibo.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Page | 2008-06-06 14:26:57 | Re: 1.8.4 bug DB Restriction field |
Previous Message | Dave Page | 2008-06-06 14:14:48 | Re: 1.8.4 bug DB Restriction field |