From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | "Guillaume Lelarge" <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> |
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 14:14:48 |
Message-ID: | 937d27e10806060714x211d0cddoc2462f9a5828c138@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgadmin-support |
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?
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Guillaume Lelarge | 2008-06-06 14:22:12 | Re: 1.8.4 bug DB Restriction field |
Previous Message | Guillaume Lelarge | 2008-06-06 14:12:59 | Re: 1.8.4 bug DB Restriction field |